Updates from admin Toggle Comment Threads | Keyboard Shortcuts

  • admin 1:52 pm on September 9, 2013 Permalink |  

    I’m going to write some general comments here about your posts, all of which were good. The only problem that I can see – and something to keep in mind more for the coming weeks and the blog entries you will write there – is that some of you didn’t address the second part of the question about what the story of Canadian history is. Or if you did, it tended to be more implicitly stated than directly. Go for the direct approach. I’ll give an example shortly.

    Most of you said that Canada was a multicultural and diverse country; in addition the diverse First Nations, it’s home to people who have come here from around the world. Many of you emphasize that this makes Canada unique, especially since relations among people are peaceful. Yet at the same time, others of you pointed out that if Canadian history is about how this place became multicultural, it’s also the story of how that process wasn’t without its tensions. There was conflict (some of you refer to a “dark side”); there were winners and losers. A number of you pointed out that the gains of settler society were often achieved at the cost of First Nations, yet as the two First Nations students pointed out, many indigenous cultures and communities are thriving now despite colonization. They also make the point that how history looks – what kind of story it is – is shaped by who is doing the telling…. One of you talked about Canada as “opportunity”. That’s certainly the case, but would everyone have experienced it as that? My point is that we need to be careful in our generalizations, whether about the past or present!

    So…what does this all add up to? A very complex history! The history of Canada is in many ways the history of relations among different groups – social relations, but as one of you pointed out, trade, or economic relations It’s about how differences were accommodated – or ignored and denied. We’ll see in the coming weeks how much of your first impressions change.

    A couple of things to think about: some of you make mention of size as something that defines Canada. How might size have influenced its history? Others seem to note that what they know of Canadian history amounts to some events or personalities, but at the same time there’s also a recognition that that isn’t a story, much less a history. If you know what history ISN’T, can you say what kind of story it is? Wouldn’t it be a story of change over time?

    And does hockey really define Canada????? Or is the question really about how it has come to pass that we think hockey defines the Canadian identity?

    Good job everyone!

     

  • admin 6:20 am on July 29, 2013 Permalink |  

    Week 1 Wall 

    Vancouver 2010 Olympic Street Party

    What is Canada?

    To give us all an idea of our preconceptions coming into the course, write your blog entry on what you think Canada is and what the storyline(s) of Canadian history are; i.e. “Canada is ….” And “Canadian history is about ….” – you fill in the blanks!

     

    • jbachynski 12:18 pm on September 4, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      I was born in Canada and have lived here my whole life. During my travels throughout the country, I have learned that it is not only vast in open space and size, but in cultures as well. Being a country that developed through the immigration of many different nationalities, our identity as a nation is harder to pin point. There is not necessarily a “Canadian way” of doing certain things, and I feel that customs and traditions are constantly evolving. It seems very common as a Canadian to have grandparents or parents that have come from somewhere else, for example, my grandparents are from Poland. When traveling to other older countries, it becomes very clear how young and adaptable Canada truly is. I feel that Canadian history is not something that is as widely talked about. Perhaps it is because we are a younger country, or maybe it is because of our peaceful reputation and lack of dominance in world history. Besides having some basic knowledge of famous Canadians like Louis Riel, Laura Secord and Terry Fox, I know less than I feel I should about my country. I love how Canadians have preserved so many amazing lakes and national parks, and really seem to appreciate the nature that surrounds us. I am interested to learn more about how Canada came into existence and developed into one of the most beautiful countries there is.

    • enorthwood 2:35 pm on September 7, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      My family, including myself, mother, father, sister and brother have lived in Canada our whole lives. However, my grandfather, who comes from Wales and my grandmother who comes from France were always telling me stories when I was younger about the great history of Europe, how they moved to Canada, what the differences in their life was from here to there, contrasting a number of ideas into my head about the differences between different parts of the world and Canada. I feel like Canada is overlooked too often, I can’t tell you how many times I’ve listened in on conversations when I’ve visited the states about Canada being irrelevant, or heard jokes about the way that Canadians do things. It seems there is a lot ignorance surrounding the actuality of the Canadian nation. I believe this to be a highly troublesome thought, considering that as a nation, and as a country, we certainly have a lot of history to offer. We’ve struggled like any other country, with political parties like Chateau Clique in the lower parts of Canada or Family Compact in the higher parts at the beginning of our history, all the way through our governmental policies to block the excess of Asian or Indian immigrants, such as head taxes, all the way to where we stand today, and it has been a long, relentless fight to equality. That being said, in Toronto, Ontario, where I went to high school, we were required to take history until grade 10 of high school, and most of it wasn’t even Canadian history, it was European. I think Canada is a literal kaleidoscope of a variety of different cultures, people, languages, and traditions which to me makes it a role model in our international community. While I think Canadian history certainly has it’s down points and dark spots, and is highly influenced and certainly a large part of European history, Canada certainly has its own lessons and legends that have made a global difference, I wish this was more widely recognized. I think the most interesting thing about history is the idea that we keep making such similar mistakes, Canada is not innocent of this. I am intrigued to learn more about where I’ve lived my whole life, and to understand the points in time where Canada has fallen, but still overcome.

    • the1strange2part3of4town 5:31 pm on September 7, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      Canada is my home but because as a country so vast and diverse beyond conception, I have come to see Canada more as political entity that I just so happen to live within. Coming from a political background, I believe in the state and its power being very real in this modern time. Canada is a state. How Canada became the state it is today is very much a question of its history. Canadian history is so diverse, the story lines are infinite. However, it is this diversity and complex history from coast to coast that has made Canada into a multicultural and multinational state. From a more personal perspective, Canada is a place of opportunity and its history is made up of all the story lines of its inhabitants taking advantage of its opportunities and contributing to Canada and its growth. Canadaian history, good and bad, is all equally important because the silverlining is that everything in history has contributed to what it is now and what it means to every individual, not just Canadians. Furthermore, Canadian history is a global history because of its multicultural, multinational nature.

      I am Canadian because I was born in Canada and raised to be culturally Canadian. My Canadian history is inherently linked to my parents origins. My mother’s family history is a good example of this. Emigrating from Hong Kong at a young age, my mother was brought to Canada by her father who worked in Vancouver’s Chinatown; and previous to her father, my mother’s grandfather helped build the trans-Canadian railway. My mother’s family was eventually reunited and able to immigrate to Canada where they believed they would be given the opportunity to live better than they would in China. But as a land of opportunity, Canada is also constantly growing as a result of its inhabitants contributing to its growth directly or indirectly. My great-grandfather who helped build the trans-Canadian railway took advantage of opportunities in Canada, as well as contributed to its growth and prosperity through his contributions to the railway directly and the Canadian economy indirectly today. My grandfather on the other hand contributed to the growing Asian-Canadian culture by whole-heartedly “becoming” Canadian. Once he landed in Vancouver, he learnt English and would only eat Chinese food on special occasions. As a result, his entire family followed suit in assimilating to Canadian culture. Today, my mother sees herself as an unhyphenated Canadian while still understanding that where she came from and the journey she and her family took directly effects where she is today and has contributed the multicultural, multinational Canada we live in. Consequences of my family’s commitment to assimilating as Canadians, I see myself as purely Canadian. I follow Canadian customs, culture, speak only English and French, while being ethnically Chinese and Polish. What Canada is to me is a place of opportunity and growth where everyone adds something to Canada from their experiences and origins. It is thus this growth from people coming to Canada that has created the Canada we all live in and its history. Canadian history is a global history because almost everyone, except for the indigenous minority populations, came to Canada from other places for one reason or another and brought with them an infinite amount of experiences, ideas, and things contributing to Canada and its history.

      • cprimus 8:41 pm on September 7, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

        O, Canada!

        Canada is a beautifully diverse country. Although we’re known for our manners and lumberjacks, Canadians have a lot more than just courtesy and plaid jackets hanging on our hooks. The injection of foreign cultures, customs, language and people into the stream of life is really what makes the country’s heart beat. We are mostly a country of immigrants, and as a cultural melting pot we’re still trying to assemble a national identity. Well, some of us are. French Canada seems to be pretty clear on its own culture and politics, and wants nothing to do with the rest of us. And Native Canadians have given us plenty to work with, much of which has been overlooked, disrespected or discarded on the side of the highway but through ecotourism and a shift in consciousness it’s becoming appreciated once again. We have a lot of land to populate but keep the density pretty low, and the scenery is stunning. Canada’s bounty of natural resources is indeed a gift to us, her humble inhabitants, as we enjoy a high standard of living. We Canadians are a diverse, dynamic group of people. Hockey-loving people.

        Unfortunately I can’t say nearly as much on Canadian history. I graduated from high school too long ago to remember much else about our history besides Jacques Cartier mistakenly believing Kanata to be the name of, well, what is now Canada. Really, I’m here to re-learn Canadian history, because I love my home and native land.

      • Tina Loo 10:48 am on September 14, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

        Who are you? I can’t give you credit for your blogs if your name doesn’t appear on the post – your alias doesn’t help me figure out who you are… Please edit your posts and insert your name.

    • nkular93 10:43 pm on September 7, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      If I had to define Canada at the top of my head I would most likely say that Canada is the land of immigrants. There is so much multiculturalism present in this country. You see people of all origins and backgrounds everyday which is something that I am , in particular, very proud of. Canada is a nation where their is unity among people who do not have very much in common in terms of their backgrounds and cultures and yet are still held together by this one national identity: being a part of a nation that is inhabited by people from all over the world. Canada is spectacular scenery. Canada is tolerance for people of all origins. Canada is a history of various groups of people and their attempts and struggles to make it theirs. Canada is a mixture of a lot of identities. I feel like many people that live in this country are associated with more than one identity. One which is that of being a Canadian: being a part of a national identity that associates itself with various characteristics that are displayed by citizens of of this country on a daily basis such as the habituation to cold weather, winters, the passion for our national sport hockey, the stereotypes ( Canadians are too nice, they live in igloos, etc etc.) and one which connects them to their actual origin. I would say that although I was born in Canada and am a Canadian I am also associated with my Indian roots. Its a constant struggle trying to figure which identity you fit better or which you associate with the most and I believe that most Canadians experience this. This is one thing that many people have in common and that, I believe, is an important aspect of Canadian identity. Although their is not much I know about Canadian history, at least in a lot of detail, i believe it is the struggle between groups of people and their struggles to make Canada theirs as I mentioned before. It is the battle between the Europeans and those who have inhabited the land long before any of the Europeans showed. It is the struggle to bring inhabitants of the land under one national identity. It is the attempts of a country to be free from British identity. It is the process of gradual immigration of not only people from all across the world but also their ideas, customs, practices, innovations, and thoughts. It is the success of these immigrants and ideas, thoughts, and innovations that has led to Canada being identified as a land full of opportunities.

    • alexwickett 11:58 pm on September 7, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      I feel extremely blessed to be able to call Canada, and more specifically Vancouver, my home. Growing up in Vancouver and having both parents grow up in Canada, I feel like I have a pretty good understanding of Canadian history, in comparison to people who didn’t necessarily have to learn about it as part of their curriculum. That being said, I travelled throughout Europe this summer and I learned so much about so many other countries and places just by going and visiting buildings, museums, and places that are so full of rich, well known history. This made me realize that my knowledge about my own country, even after studying it for years is rather minimal. I feel much of what I was taught in high school had to do with the fur trade, the Hudson’s Bay Company, and John A. Macdonald. I know there is to be more to this country’s history, and I am excited to be able to recite as much and more about my own country’s past as I can about a lot of foreign places.
      Being away really showed me how lucky I am to live in Canada, and it made me realize that Canada, and specifically Vancouver, is really the only place I would be able to settle down in the future. I love the fact that my country doesn’t have a overly violent history, and I love the fact that we are a peace keeping nation as opposed to an aggressive, or suppressive nation. Of course there are dark periods of Canadian history such as the mistreatment of aboriginal peoples throughout the nation and the internment of the Japanese people during the Second World War. Though these and many other parts of Canadian history are not something to be proud of, Canadians can be proud of the fact that we have learned from our past, are not fated to make the same mistakes, and have tried to make amends wherever possible. Canada is a country with so much to offer, and in my opinion the more people know about the past, the more informed they will be to make great decisions in the future.

    • millyzhu 1:49 pm on September 8, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      Canada is a very diverse country. It is known for its multiculturalism and abundant amount of immigrants. I was seven years old when my family emigrated from China and there were quite a lot of cultural shock. The main ones were that the ratio of people to land was unbelievably unbalanced and that there were people with different hair colours, such as brown and blond. There were many services that catered to new immigrants and areas where immigrants gathered together to make new friends and connections. However, Canada, specifically Vancouver, has more immigrants annually than other provinces and territories. With such a diverse nation, it is difficult to unite all Canadians. There may be areas where all different types of Canadians mingle for a bit, but in the end, these different types of Canadians go back to their comfort zone to those that are similar to them. Looking back at the history of Canada, this is not the first time it has happened. With the takeover of the land by Britain and establishing Canada without the consent of those originally living on the land, Canada has had major relationship complications with indigenous people. Even today, after almost one hundred fifty years, there still remain disagreements between indigenous people and the Canadian government. Even so, Canada has proven itself that it is constantly improving and learning from past mistakes, continuing to become a better country to live in for all different types of people.

    • angrysteve 2:57 pm on September 8, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      Canada is a place where common decency has a chance to flourish. Canada is a place where the best parts of market capitalism are kept in check by common sense and sensible rules. Canada is a place inhabited by a predominantly respectful and polite people, but respectful and polite doesn’t necessarily mean ‘friendly’ by definition. Canada is place that appears better to outsiders than it truly is, due to a lack of imperialized cultural export, unlike our neighbours to the south.
      A country build on immigration that does not hold a great deal of animosity towards these immigrants, Canada is not a nation of one ideal or perspective. The “christian” way of life predominates in Canada, but this is coloured by the contributions of numerous expanding cultures. In this sense, Canada is truly multicultural, while leaning towards a secular sense of government and law.
      Canada is a place where we work to live, not live to work. Many of us have jobs that are not the focus of our lives, but instead provide us the means to live our lives outside the grind of employment. The most beautiful landscapes on the planet are contained within Canada’s borders, and a vast majority of Canadians make some degree of use of these resources.
      Canada is a cold freaking place, no matter where you go. Sure it may get to 35+ in Toronto summers, and the average temperature in British Columbia’s Lower Mainland may be the highest in the nation, but there are no true “Sunny Beaches of Canada”. The American’s can fly out to Hawaii or Florida if they want to stay within their cultural norms but escape the ravages of winter. Canadian’s are not so lucky. We make up for it with a continual good nature; we don’t complain and we’re good at taking things in stride.
      I was born and raised in Canada and it has helped make me who I am. Canadians are great people, inhabiting a great country. That is Canada in all its glory.

    • Angela Lin 4:26 pm on September 8, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      What I’ve known of Canada on a personal level is limited to the province of British Columbia only; that is, I’ve never lived in another city besides Vancouver nor have I had the chance to visit another Canadian province. I have to admit I haven’t been particularly interested in Canadian geography or history (and here I am trying to change that!). Most of what I know about Canada consists of a collection of geographical facts and statistics that I’ve acquired through my education over the years. I know Canada is the second largest country in the world in terms of landmass. It is located south of the United State, and the two countries shared the longest common border among the world. Canada has an abundant source of fresh water and lumber, and it is famous for it’s ice wine and maple syrup. There are many stereotypes and iconic symbols concerning Canadians and Canada as a nation. Those items often include hockey, maple leafs, RCMP, grizzly bears and excessive politeness in mannerism. As of Canadian history and culture, I know that Canada used to be a British and French colony, hence the two official languages. Canada is also well known for its cultural diversity. It is a country where most of its citizens are immigrants or have ancestral roots somewhere else in the world. This unique blend of multiculturalism has shaped our government policies, education system, and made us more accepting of and open to individual and cultural differences. Canada is a country where basic human rights are respected and protected by most, and where same sex marriage is legal. It will be interesting to learn more about how we come to be who we are today as a nation. I look forward to our next lecture.

  • admin 6:10 am on July 29, 2013 Permalink |  

    Week 2 Wall 

    Multiculturalism by Talayeh Saghatchian, 2006

    The idea of Canada as a multicultural nation is relatively new. But is it, given what you’ve learned in lecture so far?

     

    • enorthwood 9:12 pm on September 11, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      Canada as multicultural nation is certainly seen as a new idea, however given this past weeks lectures on the involvement of the French in our fur trades and the several different Aboriginal groups, this is clearly inaccurate. Our recent lectures are a representation of the idea that multiculturalism in Canada dates back far beyond what many of us as Canadian citizens would ever dare to imagine, and speaking for myself I can say that this dates a lot further back than I was ever expecting to see traces of a multicultural Canada. From the very start of European colonization in Canada it is clear from the mix of French and the Native settlers, that there has always been a mixture of the types of cultures here in Canada, and different types of people throughout Canada have been evidently noticeable since the arrival of the French. I was also thinking that the vast amounts of Europeans who moved over from Europe to live in Canada also would certainly be a mixture of a variety of different settlers as well. On a personal level my grandmother moved here from Paris, and my grandfather from Wales, because of this I have come to the conclusion that multiculturalism was an idea that was more or less inevitable from the start. This also puts me under the impression that multiculturalism was prominent and promisingly put in Canada before it was recognized as a very culturally diverse nation. It’s interesting to draw attention to these facts, as previously I had never really thought about the idea of multiculturalism before several different cultures existed in Canada, but upon greater thought I’ve come to the conclusion that Canada had a diverse set of people from a much farther history back then I originally had expected.

      That being said, I think that the idea of multiculturalism is also very debatable, I think a lot of the cultures that exist in Canada today, while they are certainly allowed to be openly practiced, are almost Canadian mixtures of the original culture and traditions mixed with Canadian traditions. If you’ve ever seen Between: Living in the Hyphen by Anne Marie Nakagawa, it examines 7 different Canadians who have one parent from European background and one from a visible minority, and after seeing this documentary I have to ask the question if Canada is truly multicultural, do we truly accept the cultures of others and understand them as they say we do? I feel the populace have a broad understanding of the tip of the iceberg of some of these cultures. However these “Canadians” are almost penalized for having other cultures, like Fred Wah, whose experience is that when he was in school, being a white-Chinese mix, he was told he couldn’t get a Visa because of his last name, however when he mentioned he was only a certain portion Chinese, he was allowed to get said Visa. This makes me question multiculturalism all together, so I think the idea of multiculturalism is newly mentioned more due to the fact that it’s only more recent that we’ve started to identify with other cultures and accepted them as being able to be a multicultural Canadian.

      • Tina Loo 12:57 pm on September 14, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

        Emilee, I liked your observations at the end and they’re certainly something to continue to ponder. Does diversity necessarily mean acceptance? Or what kind of diversity is acceptable, and does that level of acceptable diversity change over time, and why?

    • cprimus 4:40 pm on September 12, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      It would be a bit ignorant to say that Canada was not a multicultural nation until recently – we’ve been a multicultural nation for a while now. The land now known as Canada has for thousands of years been shared by a number of different cultures. Native Canadians were spread all over the country, with different customs, beliefs, living habits and social structures. The climate and geographical environment impacted the different Nation’s tools and means of subsistence. Languages were as diverse as the people who spoke them. Each nation had its own culture, and some got on well with other cultures and some did not.
      Although the Norse did touch down just over 1,000 years ago, they were outsiders who embarked only in trade with the natives and their time in Canada was temporary. It wasn’t until the French created a permanent settlement in the early 17th century that an internationally diverse culture was birthed, and very slowly at first because of the tiny French population. France was in Canada (“New France”) for their own economic benefit, one which forced them to create alliances with the Native groups whom they traded with, and soon came to rely upon. As more immigrants arrived, the presence of foreign religion increased as the Catholic Jesuit priests tried to convert the locals, with some success. The newcomers also brought foreign disease which wiped out half the population of Huronia, the most populous of France’s indigenous allies, and are then driven from their homes by the warring Iroquois. As the Hurons are displaced and mix with other Nations, the French commit to the land and mix with the Natives as they start growing their own food and attempt to establish trade further inland.
      So although the idea of Canada being a multicultural nation might be new, the principle itself has, in fact, been in practice here for hundreds of years.

    • millyzhu 8:46 pm on September 12, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      Canada is a multicultural country. Before this week’s lecture, I thought that it was only recent that this statement was true. However, this was not the case. During the lectures, I learnt that way before immigrants from other parts of the world came and Europeans encountered the land, there was already an established exchange of people, ideas, and things; there were different indigenous groups. These groups had variations in culture, language, norms and practices, religion, skills and trade. Moreover, they had allies and trade relationships, along with rivalry and war, with other indigenous nations. However, with the arrival of settlement from France, there was now an international exchange of people, ideas, and things. At first, the multiculturalism was not as prominent as the indigenous groups still outnumbered the French settlers. Nevertheless, the French settlers created allies with the Huron and both gained from this affiliation. As more immigrants from France came, so did diseases. The Huron, whom the French had much contact with, had no immune system built to attack these foreign diseases. As a result of this devastation, half of Huron’s population died. Unfortunately, the string of misfortune did not end there as the French had no one left to rely on for the fur trade, food, protection, and knowledge of the land. Consequently, the French had to rely on themselves, and they began learning the language and culture of their surroundings, as well as agriculture and hunting. Hence what were once groups with different distinctions was now a single nation as they grew to become a single entity with variations in backgrounds, which still continues today.

    • nkular93 10:04 pm on September 12, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      Given what I have learned in lecture, it would be ignorant to say that multiculturalism is a fairly new thing, I think we say that Canada is so multicultural today due to the fact that countless immigrants of so many different origins immigrate to Canada on a daily basis. We define the sea of colors and ethnicities that we see daily as multicultural. But if you think about it, Canada has always been multicultural. The habitation of different groups of Aboriginal peoples across Canada is proof of this. There were already so many different cultures and ethnicities and beliefs and practices present in Canada among the Aboriginal peoples. When the Europeans encountered North America, they brought along their culture, views, beliefs, and practices as well which added to the already diverse land. The French began to inhabit the land and conflicts occurred between thoughts and ways of living between the Europeans and the Aboriginals. I truly do believe that Canada is the land of immigrants and it is not only due to current situations that I am saying this but also due to the fact that the Europeans that had colonized North America were themselves immigrants. Even the Aboriginal peoples were immigrants considering that they had migrated over to the Americas through Siberia and the Bering land bridge. Therefore, Canada has pretty much been multicultural since the habitition of different Aboriginal groups across Canada. Then, over the years, as Europeans began to colonize the area, it became more and more diverse.

    • angieL 1:33 pm on September 13, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      Although the concept of multiculturalism has only been introduced relatively recent, the roots of it have long been embedded in the Canadian culture and history. Given what I’ve learned in the lecture and the tutorial, the interactions of different cultures had probably begun as early as the 11th century when trans-Atlantic Europeans first encountered the indigenous people on the land of Canada. The dictionary definition of multiculturalism is the “preservation of different cultures or cultural identities within a unified society”. Before the arrival of European culture and British/French colonization, there were already so many tribes amongst the Aboriginal people in which they all had their own customs, traditions, arts, and dialogues. So in a sense, there were already multiple cultures intertwining and mingling with one another before the introduction of European culture. One may argue that those individual groups were not a “unified society” – thus multiculturalism did not apply – but I think even though they did not share the same ideology, policies, traditions, language, or legal system, they are still considered closely connected for being economically, socially, and politically interdependent. Fur trade and the formation of alliances between the French and the indigenous people were prime examples of economic and political interdependency and how two cultures interacted. However, come to think of it more carefully, although Canada has long been a multicultural nation, the concept of respecting and preserving all cultures equally has only begun to prosper and gain wider acceptance in the past few decades. With increasing number of non-White immigrants from Asia-Pacific countries, the obvious distinctions of our diverse cultures and races have really push this concept of multiculturalism under the spotlight.

    • SteveMoody 2:01 pm on September 13, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      Would we create a distinction between multi-cultural and multiculturalism to answer this question? I believe Canada has been multi-cultuRAL since before the arrival of Europeans. The distinct nations that comprised the First Nations peoples were unique groups among themselves, sharing a large and verdant territory with others who’s level of technological development was akin to their own. The arrival of the Europeans brought several new cutlures which immediately began to affect and influence the cultures they came into contact with.
      Multiculturalism is the cultural political concept that in Canada all cutlures are free to flourish (as long as they subscribe to our reasonably secular laws) without impingement. The culture of Canada under this auspice is specifically decentralized and multi-faceted, no one unique element (aside from geopolitical boundaries) are needed to define Canadian’s. That is a somewhat forward approach, a modern idea in that a colonized nation would choose to identify its culture with having multiple cultures that share freedom.
      Canada has been filled with immigrants since the first early explorers crossed the bearing straight land bridge. What makes multiculturalism new and unique is its progressive choice to embrace that fact, rather than favour homogeny as many other nations and cultures do. Different groups have moved into Canada and called it home through centuries, so a multicultural landscape has always been the reality. Its just whether that’s what’s defines us as a cultural or not that is the question we answer with multiculturalism.

    • mosachoff 2:15 pm on September 13, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      Canada today considers itself a multicultural country. The country has grown its population over the last century through immigration, first from Europe and later from Asia, which continues today. Despite Canada being a relatively new nation, considering the length of its history, the area that we call Canada today has a history that is rich with multiculturalism stretching back over 1000 years. First Nation Canadians living at the time before European contact had diverse cultures and different lifestyles. Some were farmers and others were hunters. The groups interacted with each other, trading and exchanging culture such as language and ideas. Later, Vikings arrived in the area as described in The Greenlander’s Saga and Erik the Red’s Saga. They had interactions with the Native population that was at times peaceful where trade took place, but also violent as communication was difficult and reactions were unpredictable. Canada became home to further diversity with the arrival of the French to the area around the St. Lawrence and the beginning of permanent settlements. The French interacted with the Natives, through trade, exploration, and a desire to convert them. The French however weren’t the only people to live in their colony of New France. Slaves from as far away as Portugal were brought to the colony as it developed, adding to the diversity. Despite the idea of Canada being multicultural is often perceived to be relatively new, when we consider the scope of Canadian history, the country has actually experienced multiculturalism for thousands of years.

    • alexwickett 3:12 pm on September 13, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      Canada is considered one of the most culturally diverse nations in the world. Multiculturalism is defined as “the doctrine that several different cultures (rather than one national culture) can coexist peacefully and equitably in a single country.” If we are to accept this definition as true then it is not possible to say that Canada has been a multicultural society from the time of its early European settlers. As we have learned, since before Canada was ever even a country there has been a diverse group of people inhabiting the land. Whether it be aboriginal people, or different European people living on Canadian soil, the land has been inhabited for centuries. Though one may argue that this makes Canada a multicultural nation through and through, I don’t necessarily believe that different people living on the same soil makes a nation multicultural. The French were in conflict with some native groups, while trying to colonize others. Many aboriginal tribes had a longstanding conflict with one another, and though some may trade with each other it would be hard to argue that everyone was living in peace with each other, which is key to having a true multicultural society, according to the definition. In my opinion though, it is almost impossible to have absolutely no problems amongst different groups of people. If we are to say that Canada is multicultural now, which I would agree with; I would also say that multiculturalism did in fact begin long ago but maybe not necessarily in the time of early New France. As soon as the rights of different groups of people were recognized, and a variety of people were able to coexist peacefully together multiculturalism was born. I would argue that probably around the time Quebec was established as its own province, and the rights of the French people were protected was the time Canada became truly multicultural. Of course, there was still conflict amongst people, and even to this day racism, and racial profiling still exists, but it was the fist time that a group of people was legally identified as having different customs and beliefs, and legally allowed to practice them. To answer the question plainly, I do not believe multiculturalism is a modern change that has come to Canada recently; I believe Canada had been multicultural to some degree for generations.

    • daverob1 4:59 pm on September 13, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      Canada has been a multicultural land from the time ice began to melt and hunters as well as animals began migrating here in search of new resources. Dr Sutherland exposed archeological evidence that proved the Norse had established a historical trade with the existing Nation the Dorset people. “…the beginning of globalization…”(Dr. Sutherland, The Nature of Things). Later in history when the French and English established alliances with the First Nations treaties were established to allow trade amongst equal Nations. The mixing of cultures has only become greater as the Americas evolved through the promotion of land and resource availability. Canada was founded on the establishment of treaties between equal Nations, for the benefit of trading cultural resources. It is the trade of various natural and cultural resources that has continued to promote Canada as a multicultural and prosperous Nation. Canada is multicultural now and has been since the First Nations began exploring and exploiting the space and resources available for trade and a prosperous future. Conflict is a necessary function of communication and not a determination of multiculturalism. The lectures and readings have proved to me that Canada promotes the benefits of having a culturally diverse population. I believe our Nation embraces the trade of multiculturalism within Canada’s borders.

    • the1strange2part3of4town 5:24 pm on September 13, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      The idea of Canada being multicultural is not a new idea based on what we’ve learned so far in lecture. Going back to the beginnings and development of colonialism in North America, there were the English, French and numerous indigenous nations and thus numerous diverse cultures. Prior to Europeans coming to North America, there were numerous indigenous nations living throughout the land for hundreds of years.
      While this may be all well and good points, the question being raised is specific to Canada being a multicultural nation. Canada is a multicultural nation where a large aggregate of the Canadian population does share a common history, culture, language and territory. However, there remains large aggregate populations that can be considered nations within the Canadian multicultural nation, hence multi-national rather than just multi-cultural. Furthermore, there is an implicit assumption that a multi-national entity would have multiple cultures and thus be multi-cultural. I would therefore argue that Canada is multi-national state rather than a multi-cultural nation. Yes, Canada is a multi-cultural nation, but that’s because Canada is multi-national with many cultures entrenched in Canadian history and pre-Canadian history.
      This is because prior to the creation of the Canadian state, there existed a several nations, which, for too many reasons to note in this blog post, eventually became a collective of nations that formed the multi-cultural nation of Canada. Many people consider themselves an unhyphenated Canadian, which is intrinsic of Canadian nationalism. However, Canadian nationalism is founded on the aggregate of nations within the nation. This is what makes Canadian nationalism and Canada as a nation unique. All the parts make a whole. Canadian multiculturalism is a singular entity that incorporates all the cultures and nations that make up Canada. Therefore, to argue that Canada is multicultural only because Canada is multinational because culture is implicit of nations is simply a semantic argument. Nonetheless, Canada being a multicultural nation is only as old as Canada is as a nation (which relatively old), but the history of Canada’s multiculturalism comes from as far back as pre-colonial times.

    • Tina Loo 1:03 pm on September 14, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      Comments on your posts for Week 2:
      Just so you know, I will offer general comments on the blog entries most weeks. Some weeks I will comment on each student’s blog (I can’t do that every week so I am rotating among the 5 tutorial sections).

      In general, you all did reasonably well. I would remind you that the blogs are meant to get you to reflect on the lectures, so I expect you to draw on them directly in writing your entry.

      Most of you appreciated that the place that became Canada was multicultural from the start in that it was home to many different nations and cultures; in other words, as many of you noted last week, what distinguished the place that became Canada was its diversity, which was there even before Canada existed!

      However, some of you went on to make some important observations which I think all of us need to keep in mind: (1) that the place that would become Canada is more accurately described as multi-national; i.e. home to many different nations (Indigenous and European); in other words (2) the place that became Canada was diverse, but it wasn’t a single nation. In addition, and (3) there wasn’t the acceptance or even the tolerance of differences and the idea of equality that lies behind the modern notion of multiculturalism.

      So…where does that leave us? In the 17th and 18th centuries, the place that would become Canada was a diverse, multi-national place. It was home to many cultures, but it wasn’t a single nation. Perhaps the story of Canada is how this multi-national place became a multicultural nation-state….

      One last thing: as enorthwood noted in her blog, it might be useful to think about whether diversity = acceptance, and what kind of diversity is acceptable…. (And I’d add how the level and kind of diversity that is acceptable changes over time, and why it changes!).

  • admin 5:53 am on July 29, 2013 Permalink |  

    Week 4 Wall 

    Communication across cultures is tricky. Do you have an experience of how you successfully or unsuccessfully negotiated a cultural boundary? Did you work out a “middle ground”? How?

    Lost in translation.
    Photo credit: John M. Unsworth, 2009

     

    • nkular93 10:15 pm on September 22, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      Communicating across cultures is indeed very difficult. You never know if what you are conveying or trying to convey is necessarily getting across to the other individual who does not share the same language or cultural background as you. And it is true that a lot of things can be lost through translation. If I look back I can remember a time where I was put in the same dilemma of trying to convey something to someone who could not understand my point of view simply because they were not familiar with it. I was trying to explain to my own mother how in order to really get to know someone and in order to decide whether you would want to get married to them that it was important to date and see whether you have common interests with that person. It was important to go out and spend time and become familiar with one another. I also tried to explain that sometimes there was a possibility of things not working and having to move on to other people. My mother just would not accept that way of thinking because to her it wasn’t necessary to date and go out and it was just unacceptable to date around with other individuals. Basically it was the idea of sticking to one person for the rest of your life. And honestly I didn’t blame her for her mentality. She is from India and in India there are a lot of reservations when it comes to going out and meeting people due to the fact that a stigma can get attached to your name because of it. Therefore, to her, it was unacceptable. Eventually after lots of persuading she started to understand my point of view. I had to explain to her that life here was different and that there was no need to be afraid of stigmas because of the fact that not a lot of people were familiar with each other as they would be in India. I also had to make her understand that life is not so straightforward and can not be predetermined by parents. Everybody is independent and doing there own thing. It was a very tedious task though because things like culture and values would get in the way. But eventually, after a lot of conversation i managed to get a bit my point across. This allowed her to loosen up and not be so stringent when it came to meeting other people and developing relationships. I can’t say that I’ve changed her outlook on EVERYTHING; she still thinks its better for girls to not go out a lot and to maintain a low profile etc etc; however, i can say that i made some sort of impact on her thinking and her way of viewing things. I made her more laid back and relaxed through conversation and by stating examples etc. I also tried to relate situations to people we knew and were both familiar with so that she could she what I was getting at. In some way, I managed to cross that cultural gap.

    • enorthwood 9:48 pm on September 23, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      I think something that I began to learn this year is how different translations are, and how much translations are entirely up to interpretation of the person who is translating it. I think when it comes to cross cultural communication, which is something we fail to recognize that things don’t translate exactly the same, which the sign above reminded me of. To me, a famous example of this is the Qu’ran, which no matter what kind of Islamic or Muslim background you come from you always read the Qu’ran in Arabic because translating it into other languages forces the translation to become something completely distorted, and in order to truly understand the Qu’ran it must be undistorted. A friend from back at home in Toronto this past summer, Ada, is from Islamic faith when she, I and a friend of ours were in Chapters looking at books. My other friend pulled out a translated to English version of the Qu’ran and started making remarks about how the authors note was that this was ‘his interpretation’ of the Qu’ran and how he doesn’t see how anything couldn’t be translated to English and how it couldn’t be “that hard” to make an accurate translation. My friend, Ada, being highly offended by this began to voice her opinion about the obvious translation issues that come along with any language. Seeing this was becoming an issue and topic of debate between two of my good friends, we went back to my house where we all looked up one word in English on the internet, the continued to find that same word in other languages then looked up in dictionaries what they actually meant. This process across several languages showed many different broken lines and several different interpretations and the guy who made a comment about how it’s not very hard to translate something to English, had a little further understanding of how subjective this process is. I think the middle ground was created in the seeking of knowledge to prove a point about the way that translations work and it was clear to both people involved, including myself, how ignorant we can all be in understanding this fact. I think cultural boundaries are set up by ignorance, which makes communication complex for us. It’s not always that we don’t want to understand, but much about the fact we don’t want to listen to what other cultures have to offer our Eurocentric way of thinking.

    • alexwickett 3:39 pm on September 25, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      This past summer, I went on a trip throughout Europe with three of my close friends. Being naïve students, we did extensive research on where to stay, what to eat, and what to see while in each country, but we did absolutely no looking into the cultures and customs of these other places. We had assumed that because we were staying in Western Europe, the etiquette and cultural practices would be the same as in Vancouver. We were wrong. The place we noticed the greatest discrepancy between our customs and theirs, was in Paris, France. The people there are much more standoffish, far less friendly, and generally more formal than here in Canada.
      On one hand we were able to negotiate the cultural boundary because we made a friend who lives in Paris and he taught us the Parisian cultural norms. We learned that if we needed directions, to always approach someone in French, and wish them a good day before you ask for anything or especially, switch to English. We also learned that there was a certain standard of dress for dinner anywhere. We were unfortunately lacking on many of the appropriate clothes, but we were able to polish ourselves as much as possible and at least run a comb through our hair. We also learned that it was a sign of respect to Parisian restaurants to come looking presentable. We were able to somewhat successfully, navigate the French cultural boundary, but unfortunately there was no middle ground established. We were guests in their city; therefore we made all the concessions in order to fit in with them. Not only did they not go out of their way to even speak to us in English, but also they were viably displeased with us and would be rude and unfriendly wherever possible. I believe this was the case because unlike in the early part of our history, both parties did not need something from the other.
      The French gave the Indigenous people gifts and adhered to their practices because they wanted to show that they respected the Aboriginals so that they would agree to what the French were proposing, in one case, a peace agreement. In another instance the Indigenous people tried to take up the dress of the Europeans, which also showed respect and acknowledgement of the European customs and practices. The Parisian people wanted nothing from us, or really nothing to do with us, so no middle ground was made; if we wanted something, all the concessions had to be made by us. It is unfortunate, but I do believe that people need to have an incentive of mutual gain first, before they go out of their way to show respect for other cultures. If one party requires nothing from the other, they will not go out of their way to acknowledge the other cultures practices.

    • kenthen 4:14 pm on September 25, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      In my own culture, I am a secwepemc native from the interior Salish. One of the things i enjoy to do is to tell stories from the Secwepemc people. Some have even gone as far to title me a storyteller and I’m not sure if i am comfortable with such a prestigious title such as this. However In my travels i have come across many differing chiefs, scholars, elders and people that have enjoyed me perform and to tell of the stories of our ancestors. however at this one event i tried to recreate a story titled, “The Story of Snina'”. This is a simple story of a young mother in the pre-contact days who has a bratty son and when puts him out in the night to trick him into behaving by telling him if he doesn’t do as such Snina’ will come to get him. Which she does and the young man grows up to to trick snina into releasing him and for her actions she will only be able to convey the bad news of when someone passes away. Its a simple story of moral and creation as told by our ancestors. So i tell this story in the English language through the character of coyote who is the trickster, but coyote is the character i tell all my stories through. A chief in the crowd didn’t enjoy the way i told the story because as he put it he only learned it in the Secwepemc language. So he told of how the way i told it too much was lost in translation and that in essence what i was doing was a bad thing. I was no better than the priest that came along and took artifacts and personal belongings years ago, nor I was I any better than the people who came along years ago and took some of our stories and made them into short comics that were seen to be disrespectful. thus here i was caught in a cultural boundary within my own culture! I stopped telling stories for a short while and really considered my actions and behavior until finally i went to see some elders and asked if what i was doing was indeed a horrible thing. I was told that the story tellers of our past told the stories as a way of creating an atmosphere or to teach or to tell of news and that the exact translation was lost even in their times due to creative changes. They went on to ask me if i tell them in a good, kind and respectful way in which i reiterated with a sound yes. The elders I spoke to understood that while the chief may have had some anger at the situation, some tobacco and a short conversation with him might clear the air and to also tell him of my desire to learn from him as well as to be treated with the same respect that i show him. So i did just that, I went to him told him of my conversations with the elders, how his speech made me feel and that i respected and honored him as a chief and if he were willing i would learn from him. We agreed and compromised that in some ways we were both wrong and that together we would learn, we are now friends.

    • millyzhu 9:17 pm on September 26, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      I come from a Chinese background, but because I immigrated to Canada at an early age, I was not able to learn Chinese to the point of being able to read a newspaper completely. As a consequence of this incapability, I have a difficult time speaking to Chinese elders and my parents, especially when I want to tell them something or share an idea or opinion. When I want to tell my parents something interesting or funny that happened to me, I have a hard time conveying my story because my vocabulary is so limited. Because of the lack of Chinese knowledge, I sometimes end up ruining the story or just giving up. However, I am currently learning Mandarin right now and using that as a bridge to cross over to be able to speak fluently and to communicate easier with my parents. Even though my parents can somewhat understand my fragmented Mandarin, it still does not solve the problem with communicating with other Chinese people, especially elders. I worked for a friend’s mother one summer, and one of the requirements was to be able to speak Mandarin. Although I was able to somewhat get by with my simple vocabulary when we were conversing, we still had difficulty explaining and understanding each other when it came to work and the vocabulary used for business. Nevertheless, I tried my best and when there was something I did not fully grasp, I would either ask her to use a different word to explain it, or use translation programs on the computer. In order to cross that barrier of language, I had to use different means to do so, such as finding another way around it, or using what was at hand (ie. technology).

    • daverob1 11:57 pm on September 26, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      I work in a boxing club and everyday I come across various cultures and persons from all over the world. There is more often than not cultural and language barriers to be overcome. The positive part of this situation is that boxing is a known common interest in the initiation of every relationship here. The obstacle of a verbal language barrier must be overlooked. Speaking in a form of demonstrative sign language becomes in common. I have coached many persons over the years where throughout the entirety of our relationship verbal conversations have never taken place. It is funny because this has not generally effected the development of skill or the understanding of what is being demonstrated to what is being learned. There is a sign-language to boxing that if demonstrator and student agree to listen to each other communication is possible. It may not sound like much but boxing is a full body activity and the hands must be coordinated with the feet and without language to describe what is expected teaching is different. The funny thing about it is I feel the relationships developed in this way are no less descriptive or explanatory than the relationships where I communicate verbally. There is no one situation that stands out to me because it is a daily practice and as a person who speaks fluently in two languages I speak in the communication and language of boxing and English. I think a person can know how to speak a language without ever communicating well in it. I think I know how to communicate well with persons when commonalities and interests are worth trading. I’ve always found it interesting that the economics involved in the development of relationships regardless of language barriers has never come to be misunderstood.

    • angieL 2:44 am on September 27, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      Vancouver is known for its cultural diversity. Simply just living here has provided me with a lot of opportunities to connect and interact with different cultures. For someone who was born outside of Canada, I remember it took me a while to get used to all the hugging, which seems to be so prominent in Western mannerism. Although it has always been obvious to me that the act itself merely displays a sense of friendliness and politeness, when it is exchanged at parties and functions with people who barely know each other, it still seems utterly pretentious and excessive to me. It is not because I dislike physical contact, but before I moved to Vancouver, I would never imagine myself hugging people other than my family and very close friends, simply because there was no such expectation to do so in social interactions. It was a little awkward at first, but I pushed myself to do it and eventually got used to it. In this example, there was not really a “middle ground”; it was either you adapt to this social behaviour or you don’t. I guess if I was really repulsed by the idea of hugging, I could just tell people that it is not in my culture to hug so much and I don’t think anyone would have forced me to. But then I don’t want to appear unfriendly or cold, or feel like I have to explain myself as to why I am “different” each time, so I voluntarily gave up negotiating a cultural boundary in this case. My reason for doing so was simply because I wanted to facilitate new social relationships and intergrade into a new society as smoothly as I can. Like what we went over in the lecture, the indigenous and the French both adapted to each other’s cultures in forms of clothing and communications as ways to establish social bonding, trust, and more importantly, liaisons. I believe every little effort you take in order to understand or just imitate another culture will not go unnoticed. When the indigenous representative attempted to dress like more French-like to facilitate the negotiation, although the French laughed about it, I believed the friendly gesture made them more at ease knowing that the indigenous people were trying to understand and respect their culture.

    • cprimus 1:29 pm on September 27, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      I’ve both found and failed to grasp middle ground with my coworkers at different stores for the company I work for. I want to share the example of a lack of shared understanding, and will avoid using specific countries, cultures, and names.

      It might seem somewhat uncommon for a Caucasian woman to be discriminated against, but I was. I work as a customer service rep in a male-dominated industry, and had no female co-workers for a year and a half. I was the only Caucasian working at the main store in Vancouver for 6 months. When I first started working at that store, I decided that although I was friendly, I would give my new coworkers a chance to warm up to me, because maybe it was “a cultural thing”. They didn’t. I wanted to give them the benefit of the doubt that it wasn’t because of my gender, but when two new employees were hired, both Caucasian males, and were immediately assimilated, I knew that something was amiss.

      I wanted to fit in and be included so I baked cookies, bought plants to liven up the office, wore a fake smile in hopes to win them over to no avail. As I became more aware of my exclusion, which was sometimes blatantly hurtful, I realized that despite what they actually thought of me, I could not respect people whom I felt no respect from. I had tried to be tolerant of them, and I tried to do things to please them, but I was out of energy and ready to move to a different store.

      Guess what my doting boss – who comes from the same country that most of my coworkers come from – told me when I came to him in tears one day? “Baby girl, it’s a cultural thing”.

    • mosachoff 4:12 pm on September 27, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      I went to middle and high school in Singapore, a diverse island, and city-state in the heart of Southeast Asia. The country’s population can be divided into two groups: Singapore citizens (who make up 62% of the populations and other residents such as permanent residents, foreign workers, and students (38% of the population). Within the group of people who are Singapore citizens, there are three distinct cultural groups: Chinese, Malay, and Indian. Singapore has a diverse and unique cultural composition that I was fortunate enough to have experienced while living there. As a Canadian, the cultures that I interacted with were often vastly different from my own and were at times puzzling. A common occurrence for me where I needed to communicate across cultures was interacting with taxi drivers and providing them with directions. In Singapore taxis are subsidized by the government to minimize the number of cars on the road and as a result are much more affordable than cabs in Vancouver. Taxi drivers came from many different backgrounds from Mainland Chinese immigrants who spoke little to no English to wealthy businessmen who would drive a taxi in their spare time to earn extra money. If you were lucky however, you would hop in a cab and be greeted by an older Singaporean man who had been driving cabs for forty odd years. These individuals predated Singapore’s independence from Britain and were distinctively Singaporean by their use of the creole language Singligh. As soon as you were greeted you would know that you might need to respond in Singlish. Because it is English based, the language is quite simple to pick up and can be sort of feigned by foreigners like myself who only had to change their accent and structure of their speech. When giving directions to a destination the driver was not sure of, I would provide directions like “can turn left here ah. After go straight all the way and can stop”. Along the way I would also make small talk saying “so much traffic is it” meaning “there is a lot of traffic”. My experiences were for the most part successful in communicating across cultural and language barriers in this way as well as a lot of fun. I was successful through adaptation to the local culture as opposed to the reactions of other expats who found the coarse and blunt nature of the language offensive and unintelligible.

    • the1strange2part3of4town 4:32 pm on September 27, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      To state that communication between cultures and languages can result in miscommunication is commonly accepted at face value. The reasonings behind the occurrence of lost-in-translation communication as seen in the agreements in Acadia covered in class, I see as being a result of a power-struggle between cunning trickery and good-faith. Successful cross-cultural communication would be the result of finding a “middle-ground” between opposing agents where both sides obtain a mutually beneficial agreement. Furthermore, in finding a “middle-ground,” I’ve found that a precedent or status quo is just as important as establishing prior to any kind of negotiation between people, groups or institutions. In my experience, when communicating across cultural and linguistic borders, the above factors are important to consider in order to avoid miscommunication.
      As full-time student that has a part-time job, I find that, though I may not be communicating across cultural borders with my boss, my work-relationship with my boss crosses borders that separate us based on our priorities. My priority being schooling before work, and his priorities being centred around the success of his small business. I would argue that a small business owner and a full-time student live in different “worlds” in a sense where the only overlap is my employment. Therefore, in transitioning between summer mode to school mode while keeping my job required careful communication between him and I so that our symbiotic work relationship could continue. In trying to figure out a schedule that worked for the hand-full of employees and I, a miscommunication occurred resulting in me almost being let-go because in our negotiations, I wanted at least one weekend day off to study. My boss is profit oriented, like the early European settlers and traders, and I need an income to which my services and skills can be traded, like trappers. Luckily, through our negotiations, a mutually beneficial outcome was reached for both parties. I attribute this success firstly to the establishment of a status-quo, which was my summer work schedule. I had good-faith that I would be able to keep my job while working only 1 day on the weekend, though that was not the case; herein lies the power-struggle. Rather than exchanging a weekday shift for my one of my weekend shifts, a middle ground was reached where I would work 2 days on the weekend and keep my job in good-faith and loyalty rather than losing my job all together and finding a new (and probably less desirable) employer. Though I am not seen as expendable, nor do I see my boss as cunning or disloyal, this cross-cultural (small business owner vs. full-time student) communication could have had ended badly for both parties as a result of a miscommunication. I need a job, and my boss doesn’t want to hire and train another employee was a middle-ground that was reached between us. There were trade-offs on both sides, but successful communication was key in negotiating while the establishment of the summer status-quo prevented a miscommunication and an non-beneficial agreement on my part, such as my loss of employment. Lastly, a miscommunication as noted can be a result of a power-struggle. The maintenance of successful communication I have found in this instance and many others, is the result of symbiotic relationship where both sides or parties accepts that the other is integral for continued success of the status-quo or in finding a solution to a problem; rather than one party dominating the other for one-sided benefit (i.e. me being too much trouble and not worth negotiating). Hence lastly, accepting the noted factors that contribute to successful communication rather than miscommunication, mutually beneficial agreements are also integral in maintaining successful communications and relationships wherein this prevents domination and submission.

    • Tina Loo 6:19 pm on September 28, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      Some general comments on Week 4 :

      Many people in the class brought up the fact that UBC is a very multicultural campus in a culturally diverse city, so that learning how to accommodate oneself to differences is something we have to do all the time. There were some great examples of how people react to differences – everything ranging from reacting with unease, frustration, and sometimes with aggression and bullying to making an effort to learn and adapt, whether through trying new foods, learning new words, figuring out new customs, or sharing (whether it be food or a love of football). And sometimes, as at least one of you pointed out, all the efforts to make a middle ground fail….

      Your stories led me to think that the key to making a middle ground is a mutual interest and commitment in doing so. The French and Indigenous nations that met at Montreal really wanted the same thing – trade and above all, peace – to the extent they were willing to be hostages in the “enemy’s” camp. Most of us don’t engaged in treaty negotiations, but we do have to find a way to get along in the midst of different cultures, and doing so successfully seems to be premised on an ability to get beyond our fears and to be open to new experiences, to let go, to a certain extent, of some of the ways we do things. This begins by recognizing that the way we do things, the things we think are “normal” aren’t necessarily seen that way by everyone!

  • admin 5:52 am on July 29, 2013 Permalink |  

    Week 5 Wall 

    Given what you’ve learned this week about the politics of representation, what ideological purposes does the image below fulfill?

    Mort du Montcalm, Marc-Aurèle de Foy Suzor-Coté, 1902

     

    • enorthwood 5:32 pm on October 1, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      Given what I’ve learned so far about the politics of representation this week, especially through the painting of wolf is that this painting serves a political purpose to represent the people being portrayed in a certain way. As drawn upon in the lecture, “The Death of Wolfe” is showing Wolfe as making the ultimate sacrifice and they portray “Wolfe as Christ” by the way he is being held like the Virgin Mary held Jesus. This kind of artwork can serve several representations such as the suggestion that Wolfe’s death didn’t really matter and it can be mocked, or it can be seen as a literal painting of the great sacrifice made by Wolfe in the Seven Years War. Moving along to the ideological purposes, I think for Wolfe the political issue is that it can lead us to misinterpret the impact these individuals actually had within the time period. These paintings serve a purpose to portray these people as heroes and people who sacrificed themselves, however this interpretation can lead historians to several interpretations of the past. This idea honestly makes me question sometimes the validity of historical interpretations. Throughout my year here at UBC through taking an Islamic history course, I’ve already learned so much about how language is all interpretation, I’m starting to learn that maybe historians are subjecting us to their interpretations as well- which to me is a foreign idea because I’ve always seen history as a solidified figure.
      The ideological purposes that this painting serves seems to make Montcalm almost a martyr in a way, by making it seem that in the battle against Wolfe he too sacrificed something for his people. Ideally, at this time the painting certainly could affect the way that the people of the time reacted. When someone martyr’s them self for a cause, it motivates the people to fight harder in that persons’ sacrifice. I believe that that kind of ideological purpose is being served for the time, especially the way that Montcalm is portrayed in all white, and almost like Wolfe, like he’s a holy figure. That being said, he’s surrounded by what looks like military cavalry waiting on the death of him to plan their next vengeful move.

    • kenthen 3:14 pm on October 3, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      Montcalm was a representative of France and stood the ground in New France as a lieutenant – Governor and led the army into a series of battles through the seven years war. On that fateful day in September during the “Battle of the Plains of Abraham” as the French army retreated Montcalm was shot which would prove to be his demise. The funny thing about looking at this picture is all the glorification that it resonates about Montcalm when it was his decisions that led to the defeat and there is a question as to whether he even wanted to be in Canada in the first place. So the question that one has to ask is why the choice was made for the French government to commission such a glorified painting of a losing commander and why was the inevitable blame put onto the shoulders of Vaudreuil, when in fact it was the decisions of Montcalm that led to the defeat. Thus leads into the politics of representation, what was the French government trying to say with this painting? That Montcalm is truly a man that deserves such high praise to be caste into the light of Godliness with only those of importance to surround him as he is sent away to the heavens to a place that can only befit such a earthly man as he was? meanwhile those left behind were left to deal with the aftermath of his fateful decisions that not only lost New France but the lives of many soldiers that were considered not quite ready for such a battle of this caliber. In the end one can plainly see that that is the road that those in powers chose, to have Montcalm immortalized in such a way that shows him as a great man, solider, leader and heavenly.
      To look at the possible ideologies of this painting one has to consider what the government was trying to say about Montcalm and how did they see him? Looking at him and the way the light shines down upon almost seems saintly, one can almost hear soft music playing. The way all these powerful military men, members of the church and a nun seem concerned and even kneel before him suggest power and genuine love and concern for him. In a way it made sense that battle was New Frances to win or lose and its almost as if Montcalm chose to lose so the French government had to save face and reputation and blame the remainders of the New France military and government. Meanwhile Montcalm is immortalized in this painting.

    • millyzhu 10:58 pm on October 3, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      Given what we have learnt this week about the politics of representation, this painting of Montcalm on his deathbed depicts him as a heroic general who has contributed much to the cause of France and New France. He is surrounded by soldiers, members from the Church, and other authoritative figures. With a soldier in the background covered in bandages and a nun kneeling on the floor, it shows great concern and love for Montcalm, as well as how much is worshiped and his importance.
      The ideological purpose that this painting may try to fulfill during the time it is painted could be that France is trying to show Montcalm as a saint that was sacrificed for New France and that his contribution to New France will not be forgotten, but galvanized and remembered. By depicting Montcalm in his way through this painting would allow France to be able to gain sympathy from citizens in both France and its colonies, as well as be able to rally up the settlers in New France regarding the war. It could also show France trying to portray that whoever contributed for New France during this time of need will not be regretful and their bravery will be noted and remembered. However, this ideological purpose is very much like propaganda where they both try to promote a particular point of view through political strategies. It is difficult to extract subjectivity and selective bias when presenting history, especially if one is trying to convey a certain perspective, and in this painting, it only shows a heroic representation of Montcalm.

    • cprimus 9:26 am on October 4, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      If I saw this painting in a gallery, I would guess that the central figure was a great man – a hero. The artist clearly wants to portray the subject – the Marquis de Montcalm – as self-sacrificing, Christ-like, revered, venerated, respected, and worshipped. His pure, unstained body is in a pillar of light, adorned in white clothing, and in a dark background which to me looks like the inside of a cave. The artist wants the viewers to see this man as a man of great importance (which is absolutely true) and as a saviour (which isn’t at all true). Louis-Joseph de Montcalm was a man who contributed to the fall of France in North America. His strategic error resulted in the 20-minutes-long Plains of Abraham war and Montcalm died of wounds sustained during the attack.

      What the painting doesn’t show is the poor public opinion of him at the time, according to historians. Until the early twentieth century, Montcalm was described as unpopular because he butted heads with the apparently likeable Canadian-born Governor Vaudreuil. However, experts started to disagree on whether he was as bad as early historians described him. This specific painting was made at the time when opinions of the man were changing – perhaps to add fuel to the pro-hero movement. Either way, the repercussions of his arrogant actions left a legacy of bitterness in French Canada.

    • nkular93 10:43 am on October 4, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      Given what we have learned in lecture about the politics of representation, by looking at the two different representations of Wolfe (one in which he is depicted as being heroic and sacrificing for the interests of the British and one in which his death is depicted to be of little significance), this image of Montcalm seems to depict him as being a self sacrificing, revered, and heroic figure who died fighting for New France. The way the officers from his garrison have been painted surrounding his bed and the way in which the light has been painted to shine on him in a way illustrates the importance of the French General and his worth in the context of the Seven Years War and his fight against British invasion.

      It is interesting to see this portrayal of Montcalm considering the fact that his decision to stay and fight the British troops instead of retreating to the towns defences, is often viewed as a mistake and the cause of the defeat of New France and the loss of New France and Quebec to the British. Perhaps the painting’s purpose is to paint Montcalm in a more heroic light and to depict him in a manner that may overlook this error in judgement and focus on his endeavours and struggles against the British in order to save the colony of New France. Therefore, this painting can be seen as fulfilling the ideological purpose of representing Montcalm as heroic instead of a man who erred in his judgement and cost the French their colony. It can be seen as shedding a different light on Montcalm, symbolizing his Importance and his contributions, and it can be seen as an attempt to distract from his error.

    • angieL 1:16 pm on October 4, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      From I’ve learned in the lecture, painters often compose their political views on historical events through the form of art. The positions of the characters in the paintings often reflect the political relationship between countries, races, and religious groups. In this particular painting, the death of Louise-Joseph de Montcalm, Montcalm was surrounded by many different groups of people on his deathbed showing grief and respect. In class, we’ve looked at two paintings of the death of general Wolfe, with one depicting him as the ultimate sacrifice in reflection to Jesus Christ, and another much less sacred and glamorous with crowd watching him die from a distance. Those two almost opposite styles of composition reflected the different views on General Wolfe’s contribution to the colony and to France during the war. As for Montcalm in this painting, he had a Frenchman kneeled in front of his bed holding his hand, a sister praying for him, and a representative of the church standing beside him. The tone of the painting is very sad and heavy. Everyone seems to be grieving for the passing of the commander, and there was people crying in the background. The ideology of this painting shaped Montcalm into a martyr; someone who was noble and loved. The position of the Frenchmen illustrated how Montcalm was greatly respected by the French and how his passing was a detrimental blow to his country. The two religious figures in the painting was also showing their respect to the commander, as a metaphor that he was with God and had a noble spirit.

    • alexwickett 4:14 pm on October 4, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      In light of what we have learned this week, this portrait, “Mort du Moncalm” portrays Montcalm in a way that may have not corroborated views of many people in the colony at the time. This image portrays the general in a very positive light. He is glowing white, completely clean, and surrounded by people who are mourning his death. The image seems to represent the almost Christ like Montcalm in white, standing out from the dark background in the photo. This contrast of colour makes it seem as if Montcalm was leading the valiant French out of the darkness that was the British. This, as we have learned this week is completely false. Not only did the French surrender to the British, but they surrendered in twenty minutes largely due to a poor military tactic initiated by Montcalm.

      It is hard to say exactly what the artist was trying to portray exactly through his painting but seeing as the artist is a Quebec born French Canadian some assumptions about his ideological purposes can be made. Seeing as he is a Quebecer, I assume that de Foy Suzor-Coté would have a fair amount of empathy toward Montcalm. He is trying to show that despite Montcalm’s poor military strategy, he is still a leader that deserves the respect that any other great leader would receive whilst fighting and dying for his beliefs. I think the artist is trying to evoke sympathy for Montcalm through his image and the way he represents the deceased. We learned that all the works of art pertaining to the fall of New France were laden with the artists’ different representations of different events based on what they were trying to evoke from the audience. This particular one seems to be a very pro Montcalm painting, and tries to represent the views that not all, but some of the people of the time.

    • mosachoff 4:50 pm on October 4, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      The painting Mort du Montcalm depicts the French commander on his deathbed. A group made up of important soldiers, priests, and nuns surrounds Montcalm. The light from candles focuses Montcalm as the center of the piece where all of the individuals around him look on solemnly. This representation of the death of Montcalm depicts the commander as a hero who has paid the ultimate sacrifice. Much like the painting The Death of General Wolfe, where the British general is given Christ like qualities, Mort du Montcalm reflects the respect the painter held for the French commander. The painter, Marc-Aurèle de Foy Suzor-Coté, painted the piece in 1902, 143 years after the actual event. The painter could have had political motives for his saintly depiction, encouraging a celebration of French heritage. A reminder that individuals who sacrificed their lives for New France would not be forgotten years later. The artist who painted the piece is also of French heritage. It is possible that he was invoking French sentiments as a means of supporting a political cause. The event is of a dying general and he could be encouraging that other French Canadians should continue to have the qualities and respect for their culture and history.

    • Tina Loo 12:03 pm on October 6, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      General Comments:
      Good job everyone. Most of you picked up on the fact that this painting, like Benjamin West’s, makes a visual argument about their subjects; i.e. Generals Wolfe and Montcalm. That said, the two paintings are very different. Many of you commented on the significance of the colours used by Suzor-Coté as opposed to West, but not many of you picked up on the significance of portraying Montcalm dying in bed.

      Why show Montcalm in bed rather than on the battlefield? Is it some sort of critical commentary; i.e. that generals die in bed while their troops suffer? Probably not in this case. Could it be that the painter wanted to avoid showing Montcalm dying on the battlefield because that would call attention to a French DEFEAT? He still wanted to portray the French general as a hero, though, so he showed him inside, with no reference to the Battle of the Plains of Abraham (or any other battle for that matter). If you didn’t know anything about the circumstances of Montcalm’s death, you wouldn’t even know he’d been fighting….

  • admin 5:50 am on July 29, 2013 Permalink |  

    Week 6 Wall 

    Is economic behaviour universal? Do all people pursue their material self-interest all the time? Put another way, can you think of situations where a “backward sloping supply curve” would explain your behaviour?

     

    • enorthwood 4:53 pm on October 9, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      In light of what’s been discussed this week, I think it certainly can be universal. However, I’d argue that not every place in the world is going through the same economic situation at the same time perhaps. I think that trading amongst one another is commonly acceptable as universal. This is applicable to the women known as the Metis from our lecture on Monday. They understood economics through trading and establishing trade relationships with the HBC and NWC. I think the desire to trade to gain goods you normally can’t get, and is certainly universal, however not everyone perhaps has the same timeline for it’s universality. I don’t think people do pursue their self-interest materially at the time, realistically there is a lot of organizations and people that do things despite material gain or not. Arguably, the Red Cross Organization is certainly extraordinarily self-less and is an humanitarian organization. Many people follow these organizations and put time in, donate money, and also dedicate themselves these causes. It would be hard to say that all people pursue their material self-interest all the time. None the less, they’re certainly people who do pursue their self-interest through tyranny as leaders. I mean, looking at Brazil there is a huge divide between rich and poor. Through my own behavior I can relate to my job over the summer. While I was saving for school during summer months, I worked long hours sometimes 13+ hour days at the start of my job as a waitress. I was then after a month moved to bartender, and after a few more weeks promoted to shift leader. With my promotion to shift leader I could take on less hours because I was being paid more, therefore my self-interest to obtain more money went down and I could enjoy more resting and down time. However, I decided to continue to work long hour days still because extra money was still extra money, and I could buy more things for myself. That’s a situation where I myself have let my material-self interest guide me, however I would argue that when it comes to economic gain, that was my personal interest. Nonetheless, someone else might have enjoyed more leisure time, that just wasn’t in my interest.

      • Tina Loo 11:47 am on October 13, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

        Emilee, I think you do bring up a good point: how people behave (economically or otherwise) depends on the context; i.e. they don’t behave the same way all the time. Instead, circumstances shape their behaviour. Also I think you’re right to point out that if we really did pursue our self-interest all the time there wouldn’t be any altruism. I suppose you could argue people donate to or work for the Red Cross because they get something out of it materially, but that might be too cynical… However, I did wonder about one of your comments: is the desire to get things you can’t usually get universal? Don’t those goods have to be seen as valuable in your society first?

    • kenthen 10:29 am on October 10, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      Economic behavior is universal. I think everyone everywhere trades some form of goods for other goods in some form of exchange. Now saying this I think it’s relative and relevant to the existence that the people live within that defines to what extent they do trade or even how much they trade. Which leads to the next question: do people pursue their material interest all the time? I will say no only because human nature is to socialize and to find leisure and comfort of others to surround us. We have the ability to laugh, to smile and share and wouldn’t this be a shame to waste on accumulating nice couches, vehicles and bank rolls all the time. I think back to the fur traders and although I’m pretty sure not many in this day and age would have the strength or capacity to lead and live within that existence, especially the ‘voyageurs” but I also believe that they took time out of their lives to just be still. Also look at human nature we invent, develop and re-invent items to make our lives easier to accomplish tasks faster and with less thought, saying that its also human nature to use that time to accomplish other tasks. So while we have tried to make life easier we still remain busy but we also seek out leisure when we can for not only socializing or rest but our health as well. Now in extreme cases I think that there probably is a scrooge mcduck out there who pursues their material self at all times and that there is someone who lives outside of our civilization and society who might have no one to trade goods with and finds way to be autonomous of any form of economics, those are extreme. As for backward sloping curve I think back to my days as a conductor for CP Rail where as a junior conductor you receive only 85% of your wage. As you finish out your junior period you eventually move up in 5% increments till your at 100%. So when i first started I worked as hard as i could and got in as many trips to make up for that 15% loss that i was incurring. As I moved up and eventually made my way to 100% I relaxed a little and stopped trying to jump ahead. So less money meant i worked more and more money eventually lead to me trying to work less for more leisure.

      • Tina Loo 11:50 am on October 13, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

        Kenthen, I like your example of working for CPR. I wondered if you thought what was considered in one’s self-interest differed across cultures? In other words, we might all pursue our material self-interest, but what was considered self-interested behaviour is different among different peoples, and in different times and places.

    • millyzhu 7:29 pm on October 10, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      I believe that economic behaviour is universal because everybody wants to climb higher on any type of ladder, be it social, political, or economic ladder. Even from before when there was no exchange of money, people still managed to establish a trade system, valuing which one equaled to what and thus creating a measuring scale of some sort. I also believe that people do pursue their material self-interest all the time, be it consciously (usually under a competitive setting) or unconsciously. For example, during the fur trade with the focused interaction between indigenous women and French settlers or fur traders, it led to the creation of a new group of people known as the Métis. Despite the original purpose for interacting with indigenous women and French men, and vice versa, which was to gain more access to goods, status, or better lifestyle, after giving birth to children, the French men wanted to send their children to Europe to “better educate” them. This was the French fathers’ way of unconsciously pursuing their own material self-interest in hopes that with this investment, the return will be relatively higher than compared to if the children stayed in young Canada. A situation where a backward sloping supply curve occurred in my life would be the transition from volunteering to being employed at a certain school district’s international summer program. When I was volunteering, I tried very hard for two years because I wanted the employers to have a good impression of me for when I applied for work. My material self-interest was already showing at this time where I did as much volunteering as I could for the two summers, which usually ended up being five days a week for two months. However, this paid off as my experience led me to being employed. After getting hired, I was scheduled for only working for three weeks during the entire summer. Despite that, compared to my volunteering days, being employed and getting paid was easier work as I had more time to do more significant things, while passing the smaller tasks to the volunteers. Nevertheless, my economic behaviour kicked in and I wanted more hours in order to accumulate and satisfy my own material self-interest. Therefore, when there are advantages and benefits to be gained, I believe that anyone with a material self-interest would unleash their economic behaviour.

      • Tina Loo 11:52 am on October 13, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

        Good example Milly. I wondered how you’d explain altruism if everyone really did pursue their material self-interest all the time?

    • mosachoff 12:38 pm on October 11, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      I think that economic behavior is for the most part universal. At the basis of every trade, there is a buyer who wants something and a seller who is selling something. The same motivations for trading today have existed as part of human nature for thousands of years, where the individual is looking for a result that they desire. This can take the form of currency, time, or altruistic satisfaction, knowing that they have made an improvement in the lives of someone else. From our readings about the fur trade, it is clear that the natives trading with the Europeans were adept traders and good judges of the quality of goods they were offered. That being said, the Indians did not have the same cultural values where accumulation of wealth was analogous to a rise in status. This misconception led historians to believe that the natives were cheated and really did not play an integral role in the fur trade. In fact, natives were vital to the fur trade and although their ideas of wealth differed from that of Europeans, they were still astute traders. The natives pursued material self-interest in their trading, just not excessively. In every trade they made, they acquired something they needed or wanted. Even later when Europeans traded fur for alcohol, it was still the native’s self-interest that drove the trade. At times, my own behavior is best described using the backward sloping supply curve. I have declined to work in situations because the pay I received already was satisfactory to my needs and working more was considered less valuable than my leisure time, after a point. This summer, I worked as a lifeguard on the beaches of Vancouver. The pay was pretty good and because of the fantastic weather we received in July, I often opted to spend time hanging out with friends, despite the demand for my labor. In this case, my decision was not to pursue a material self-interest but instead gain free time. Though I did not receive pay I found the time off was equivalent in value. Both my behavior and the Indians trading in the fur trade made decisions that didn’t necessarily yield material wealth, we both gained utility in the form of time in my case and necessary supplies in the case of the Indians.

      • Tina Loo 11:54 am on October 13, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

        Good example Michael. So does that mean you wanted a certain lifestyle more than you wanted the money? If that’s the case, then is pursuing your material/economic self interest universal?

    • nkular93 12:49 pm on October 11, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      I personally do believe that economic behaviour is universal in that ultimately each and every individual wants to advance their economic interests and make money or any sort of profit for themselves. Individuals are overall self interested and will look out for things that will improve their quality of life. It doesn’t matter where you are from or what group you being to or even how much you know about the world or how educated you are as every individual is going to look at what is going to be beneficial to them. Its natural to look out for yourself. In light of the material we have been looking at in class, aboriginal people who were involved in the fur trade were very much sophisticated traders who knew how the fur trade market functioned and what was beneficial and profitable to them. These people were also self interested and wanted to profit from the fur trade just as much as the Europeans.
      I don’t believe that people pursue material self interests all the time as a persons life cannot always just revolve around one aspect. There are so many things and situations that life throws at people and I don’t believe that it is possible to only think about your own self interests ALL the time. A lot people can choose to let it define their goals however if they have the drive to be successful in terms of being wealthy.
      A situation in which a backwards slope supply curve could describe my behaviour is when I became a tutor and started working for a tutoring centre. In the beginning when I volunteered there I would work as hard as possible to gain the experience that I needed for teaching. When I got hired and when I started working there I began to slow down and take things a lot more easier. Its interesting because more than myself I’ve seen this with my own employer where he worked and worked to make his business successful and then started to ease up and take more time off for himself as his business was doing well.

      • Tina Loo 11:55 am on October 13, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

        Navreen, I like your example but if that’s the case, then is it really true that economic behaviour is universal? How can it be when you don’t pursue it all the time?

    • angieL 1:47 pm on October 11, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      I believe economic behaviour is mostly universal. People have learned long ago, way before the invention of currency, to use barter system to maximize utility. It is only logical for one to trade with what they have in abundance in exchange for something that would be hard for that particular individual to obtain. This model of functioning keeps the cost of goods low and allows development and pursuit of specialization in a society. On a microeconomic level, the basic principles demand assumptions of such behaviour – that a rational individual will allocate his/her limited income to achieve maximum utility. And although I believe not all utilities are always derived from “material gain”, I would say there are self-serving motivations behind every individual’s actions and decisions. Since even seemingly altruistic acts such as volunteering and donating provide the individual with a sense of self-satisfaction, it can be argued that the altruism stems from the desire to fulfill self-interests. Relating back to our lecture, the gift-giving custom carried out by the Europeans to the indigenous, although the purpose of the act was not to gain immediate material reciprocation, was still an exchange and a pursuit of material self-interest in hope for material gain in the future. An example of my own behaviour in relations to the backward sloping supply curve is when I got promoted from a part-time cashier to a full-time administrative assistant. When I was working as a cashier, I worked extraneously hard everyday. I’d voluntarily stay late after work so I could do some extra work to help out my store manager. However, after I was promoted to an administrative position, I chose a more relax approach at work. I still did my duties and made sure the office was operating optimally, but I no longer put in extra hours after work and tried to get things done ahead of schedule so I have more time to enjoy leisure activities.

      • Tina Loo 11:57 am on October 13, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

        Angela, I like your example and wondered if we are stretching “economic self-interest” a bit much when we say that it includes altruism… We certainly do get something from altruism, but is it material, really?

        • angieL 1:18 pm on October 16, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

          You are right, I don’t believe there is a “direct” relationship in terms of economic or material gain. I guess it is a bit too cynical to question altruism!

    • doraleung 2:23 pm on October 11, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      Though economic behavior is probably generally universal, there are moments when not everyone is just looking to maximize utility. But first of all looking at economic behavior is being universal, we can first look at the fur trade between the aboriginals and Europeans. These two groups established strong ties among themselves to strengthen their economic status. Even when aboriginals practiced gift giving traditions and such, they essentially had a material-gaining motivation behind it.
      However, a situation I could find where people are not just motivated by material self-interest is whenever someone gets promoted at work, or a more efficient method of work is put into place. This is when the backwards sloping supply curve would apply. One would be able to put in less time and effort, but still be able to produce the same amount of utility if not more. Take for example an under ground musician who is not well known by the general public becoming an international award winning artist. During this artist’s early years, he is probably not motivated by material gains, and simply does what he does for the sake of doing it. Say hypothetically he gets discovered by a record label, gets signed, and becomes famous. He no longer needs to put in quite as much work to earn is certain amount of money. Even if he does need to work the same amount of hours, he is definitely earning much more than he was originally. Therefore he is spending less amount of time and energy to make the same amount, if not more, money.

    • alexwickett 3:16 pm on October 11, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      In my opinion, economics is universal and though some societies’ economies may not resemble ours, they are economical just the same. It is a basic human instinct to try to put yourself in the most competitive position possible, and that is achieved by doing things that will make you the most money, or the applicable equivalent. Unfortunately, we live in an unequal society. When there is inequality there is competition, and where there is competition there is bound to be people who want to lead the competition. In Canadian society everyone wants to be at the top, whether it be at the top of a company, the top of the class in terms of marks, or maybe even the best athlete, people thrive on the incentive to do well, and this creates a completely economical mindset. Even in societies where maybe money is not necessarily an incentive, people still prove to be completely economical whether it is through getting the best deals for a trade, or maybe even finding the best partner who will help take care of you in the future. It is completely normal for people to want to take care of themselves and do whatever they can to better their own position in society. I would argue that people are generally formalist as opposed to substantivists; economics is universal. A time where backward sloping supply curve could describe a choice I made is when I received a raise from my employer. I was working so hard at the beginning in order to make more than minimum wage over the summer, and finally when my salary was bumped up I breathed an effective sigh of relief, and began to relax a little more. Now that my raise has been given, I do not have really anything to work towards so I honestly do not put my full effort into my job. It is unfortunate but a very common occurrence that people want to better their own position, and once they have reached the top and do not need to do anything else to maximize their happiness, work and effort levels will decline.

      • Tina Loo 12:02 pm on October 13, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

        I like your example Alex, but does it prove that economic behaviour ISN’T universal? If it was, wouldn’t you have continued to work hard to increase your pay or otherwise get ahead by being noticed by your employer?

    • cprimus 4:17 pm on October 11, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      The tricky thing about addressing whether or not economic behaviour is universal is determining what economics exactly is. I suppose you could say that it’s about the production and consumption of goods, in which case without certain goods human beings would inevitably die and indeed, that need is universal. The need to fulfill desires is universal. But economics in a financial sense? I disagree. The societal conditions of the native fur traders in the 18th and 19th centuries prove that economics alone, self-interest alone, is not entirely universal. While material self-interest is a motivator, from what I’ve read about Native history so far, it seems that the social conditions and way of life limited how many goods an individual could gain. These people were very community-oriented and because of this tribal culture shared a lot. As for the backwards-sloping supply curve, as the quantity drops, the price goes up. For example, if there were fewer beaver pelts available, they could be sold for more money or traded for a good of higher value or more product. So here’s the thing, they want to get as much as they can get, not for themselves but for the tribe. This illustrates the difference between tribal culture and contemporary ecomics.

      • Tina Loo 12:04 pm on October 13, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

        Christine, I think you are onto an important point: just what is economics? It might be different things in different societies, or different societies might perceive value differently (what is worth pursuing might differ). So if this is the case, then economic behaviour can’t be universal.

    • Tina Loo 12:10 pm on October 13, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      General Comments on Week 6:
      What struck me about your blogs this week is that almost everyone said economic behaviour is universal; i.e. all humans all the time in all places pursue their material self interest (=economic behaviour, = rational behaviour). BUT then you all went on to give me an example of how your behaviour matched the backwards sloping supply curve – so clearly there were moments in your lives where you didn’t pursue the bottom line, when you didn’t keep going after the $$. So…is economic behaviour really universal?

      Also, a couple of you talked about other instances of seemingly non-economic behaviour; namely altruism (though some of you said we “get” something out of being altruistic!) and art. One of you talked about how many musicians, and I’d add, other artists often labour for years and years without making any money – in fact, they continue to do so knowing they won’t make a living from it. if they were really motivated out of economic self interest wouldn’t they give up and do something that paid better?

      Bottom line (ha ha, pardon the economic pun): Historians are always suspicious when people make an argument about universal behaviour. After all, historians are in the business of looking for change over time and space….

  • admin 5:40 am on July 29, 2013 Permalink |  

    Week 7 Wall 

    What factors shaped the limits of accommodation in British North America in the early 1800s?

     

    • enorthwood 7:34 pm on October 16, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      In relation to lectures this week, we discussed the idea of loyalty between the British settlers and the French and how that limited them. Firstly, we discussed the idea of the conflicting religions. Most people belonging to one religion which limited the accommodation of British into North America, and created a religious divide despite the immense desire to all assimilate the other religious standing within their own religious group. They were limited by law of law, in the fact that civil law was still French, although new anglophones were beginning to populate the area. The emergence of the two parties, the Family Compact and the Chateau Clique which were a group of rich elitists, who desired to form an aristocracy within the government in order to gain the most benefit for large powerful and their friends. In accordance to new British North American settlers, this is certainly very constricting on the general political life and the overall “New World” experience as there is still much power within the French through the massive amounts of wealth being collected through the fur trade. Certainly with conflicting division of powers, this limits the power of British subjects being able to assert their full control over the area of Canada, as they couldn’t simply reign without the predominating power of France and the wealth they had accumulated through the fur trade. After these parties are formed, Willcox, as mentioned in lecture, makes a newspaper to bring up important points based on the rights of people and the need to diminish this aristocratic form of government between the Family Compact and Chateau Clique. In relation to this, I feel like American settlers coming in and critiquing the forms of government was a very serous delegitimization against the British Empire’s “control” in Canada. Essentially what the controlled was the “few” interests, and not the interests of the many, which when it comes down to it, is not the best way to form loyalty of the people in a British government. All these factors played a role in limiting the actual control the British had, which interfered with the accommodation of not only the new settlers had to deal with, but also challenged the accommodation of a British rule within Canada.

      • enorthwood 7:37 pm on October 16, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

        limited by law, is what I meant to say, not limited of law of law. Oops.

    • SteveMoody 1:25 pm on October 17, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      The British desire to see their hold on territory maintained in British North America would be a very limiting factor in terms of accommodation of the local populations. While the circumstances which led America to revolt and gain independence were not similarly represented in Canada, the presence of a large non-loyalist (ie not British) population, the Canadiens, would cause the British to take care not to alienate the population due much (especially due to their size relative to the British aligned population).
      To maintain nominal control, the British were prepared to accommodate the francophone population through the process of permitting them their own constitutional rule. Ideally, had the Francophone population not been what it was, the British would;ve most likely been quite happy to bring the Canadien’s under their constitutional administrations, however due to relative population sizes such accommodation was necessary to keeping the peace.
      Of course these accommodations were not shared with the native peoples, even those who had worked & fought on the side of British. A lack of accommodation for these people illustrates the very British notion that the territory conquered during the conflicts was now of ‘British control and property” implying that only British interests will be represented. The Francophones (while being somewhat belligerent) were also considered of “European stock” and therefore entitled to civilized accommodation as fellow men. The natives were still considered as savages, implying that while they were an effective tool utilized during the conflicts, they had little claim if any at all to the territory of British North America, “un-civilized:” as they were. This condition does show British accommodation however (if it can be called that through the lens of history) in regards to providing limited but preserved ‘Native Reserves’ where Native culture and self rule could be perpetuated (in a perfect world) The pressure of needing to show some reward/regard for the efforts of the Native populations while not compromising European interests in the New World would prove somewhat limiting on British policies of the time.

    • millyzhu 11:22 pm on October 17, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      British North America in the early 18th century had a difficult time managing the different Loyalists, so the Constitutional Act divided the land into two: Upper and Lower Canada. Lower Canada consisted of Francophones where French civil law persisted, and Upper Canada consisted of Anglophones where British law was exercised. However, there were also indigenous peoples that resided in both these areas. With this diversity, Britain had to attempt to accommodate these different groups. One of these accommodation was to give both Lower and Upper Canada its own elected assembly, but with limited powers because despite Britain wanting the colonies to run themselves, they also wanted to keep them in check to ensure stability and keep their Loyalists loyal. They were able to achieve this through the authoritative position of the monarch representative, the Governor. The Governor had immense power in the Legislative Assembly and could hold off laws getting passed for a long period of time. Greed and corruption to a certain degree were not uncommon practices of the Governor because of this power. Nevertheless, they still made exceptions: Francophones were allowed to keep using the French civil law and their own land system, as well as the oath of allegiance was devised to accommodate their Catholic religion. However, the Anglophones despised the special considerations that were given to the Francophones and created a newspaper that propagated against how the French will always be French, which suggested that they may still be loyal to France, and thus spies. In spite of this, a man named Pierre who advocated for Francophones created the first political party in Canada called Parti Canadien, as well as created a newspaper, which demanded for greater power in the Legislative Assembly. But, Britain and the Governor had a limit on how far they were willing to accommodate this type of thinking, especially in the Legislative Assembly and circulated in print, hence forced Pierre out of the Assembly and thrown into jail. As a result, British North America, specifically Britain and those in authoritative positions, were able to manage the rest of the population by maintaining a balanced constitution, but if the line drawn was passed, such as the then radical thinking of increasing the Legislative Assembly’s power, then those who passed the line would be brought back and punished for all to see.

    • nkular93 12:27 am on October 18, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      Considering that many different groups of people inhabited British North America, it became necessary to accommodate for these groups of people so as to prevent tensions between these groups and the state that could compromise the hold that Britain had over the territories in North America. The state went as far as accommodating for many loyalists that had fled America during and after the American Revolution to the British colonies by giving them land to live on, which in turn, displaced many of the indigenous peoples that had lived on that land since the beginning. As well, in order to accommodate the Loyalists demands for an elected assembly and more representation, the British government go as far as splitting Quebec up into Upper and Lower Canada, where English speaking loyalists resided in Upper Canada and french speaking people resided in Lower Canada. Both colonies had an elected assembly and an appointed legislative council; however, the British still exercised some power over the elected assembly and the legislative council by keeping the power that they had in check. The governor still had the power to dissolve the assembly and withhold consent to bills. Therefore, the limits of accommodation were shaped by the amount of power that was to be granted to the people living in these colonies. Yes, there was to be a balance of power but to some extent. If any ordinary citizen was to try to increase the power of the people or the power of the elected and legislative assembly, such as Pierre Badard had done in the face of the emergence of the Chateau clique, then they would face the consequences.

    • angieL 1:35 pm on October 18, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      During that period of time, the influx of the loyalists, the presence of Aboriginal people, and a large French and Catholic population forced the British government to reevaluate their colonial systems and strategies to establish a balance between freedom and stability. However, as we learned in our lectures, the effectiveness of their governing strategies were not only limited by imperial laws at the time, but were also challenged by numerous other factors such as racial and ethic diversity, political, social and religious differences and language barriers.

      The Loyalist group that came into Canada was a very culturally and ethically diverse group of people with different religious beliefs and socioeconomic classes. The Constitutional law employed by the British at the time was first drafted to govern a more homogenous group of subjects, and had shown to be insufficient to apply to such a diverse group of people. The definition of being a British subject was challenged in many ways. The Constitutional Act, which divided the colonies into two distinct colonies, was definitely an attempt to accommodate the new situation and established a “balanced constitution”. Prior to the war, the British government had made several attempts to stabilize their relationship with the indigenous population and “accommodate” through contacts on landownership and gifts giving. However, the threat of war and the need to address to the loyalist settlers influx in the early 1800s took precedent over the indigenous relationship and added another layer of limitation to their policy of accommodation.

    • cprimus 1:40 pm on October 18, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      In the early 1800s, the British had to deal with 3 groups of people who were not British immigrants or loyalists: the native population, the canadiens (French) and the Americans. Britain wrote the Constitutional Act of 1791 splitting the province of Quebec into two: Upper Canada and Lower Canada.

      In Lower Canada, the governors were comprised of Anglophone elites of the “Chateau Clique”, many of whom were merchants, to sustain the power of the Anglophone minority. The British, however, accepted that the French would stay deeply devoted to France and because they were the majority of the population, they were given a voice. French landholders and merchants were allowed to vote for the elected Assembly. The British hated French Civil Law and the seigneurial system but allowed them both to stay in place for the sake of appeasing the majority.

      In Upper Canada, John Graves Simcoe was the lieutenant-governor of Upper Canada whose tactic to increase American immigration was to award Loyalists with land. His group of friends who he appointed to higher governmental positions was the elite group known as the “Family Compact”, and together they wanted to create an aristocracy. In this province the majority of citizens were American, and the British felt that they needed to be assimilated for British loyalty.

      Objections over the fairness of the government started to rise in both provinces by representatives of the majority populations, but noticeably voiceless were the indigenous people of Canada. They believed that their land was being lent to the British, when it was actually taken away by the Crown. In both Upper and Lower Canada, accommodations weren’t being made for the natives at all as they were pushed off their land, and the tension between them and the Anglophones continued to grow.

    • alexwickett 2:20 pm on October 18, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      In the early 1800’s there were ample factors that shaped the relationship between the French, British, American, and Indigenous peoples. The province of Quebec was divided into Upper and Lower Canada with the hopes of keeping relations cordial. Lower Canada, the predominantly Francophone area was given the opportunity to continue to speak their language, operate under the French Civil Code, and practice Roman Catholicism. In Upper Canada, a predominantly Anglophone area, British Common Law was practiced along with Protestantism. In order to adhere to common longing for the government to be responsible to the people, a Legislative Assembly was created in both areas, but the power of the people was limited as the governor was still appointed by the crown. Also, the governors frequently acted undemocratic in holding off the passing of a law, or using their veto power all together. Further, both areas came to have an elite group of people who formed an oligarchy. The Chateau Clique in Lower Canada, and the Family Compact in Upper Canada were groups of men, who exercised most of the political and economic power in these two provinces despite the apparent responsible government. They were opposed to democracy, which ultimately caused their downfall, but not before having a great impact on the Canadas.
      The fact that the French were allowed to maintain so much of their original culture angered many Anglophones who believed that if the French were able to continue living as they were, they would never truly be loyal British subjects and they would always remain loyal to France. With this in mind, whenever someone was convicted of high treason, they were hung, quartered and then had their intestines removed in public in order to prove a point; whether the Francophones are able to practice their religion, and speak their language or not, it is still Britain that controls Canada and at the end of the day, allegiance to the British Crown is what is expected from all subjects.

    • mosachoff 4:50 pm on October 18, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      As British North America grew, it needed to address the concerns of a growing diverse population that had individual priorities. It became essential for the British to ease tension as they had already lost their colonial ruling in the United States. The Constitutional Act of 1791 split Quebec into separate provinces: Upper and Lower Canada. Upper Canada would be English speaking and Lower Canada would remain French. The creation of Upper Canada accommodated for the influx of Americans moving north by providing settlers with freehold tenure land and free land. This action did have consequences though, as land for new immigrants was distributed from areas that had been previously inhabited by First Nations Peoples. Culturally, the British afforded further accommodation by offering some religious freedoms. In allowing the Roman Catholic Church to maintain its position in the province of Lower Canada, hostility that was sure to take place was ameliorated before it could begin. In Upper Canada, the Anglican Church shared some of its clergy reserves with the Presbyterian Church. As diversity grew though, other denominations appeared in the province; however, most of these were not afforded the same rights and remained peripheral. In the political sphere, British North America allowed for an elective Legislative Assembly in each of the Canadas as a result of the Constitutional Act of 1791. This allowed for some autonomy in terms of a voice for colonial needs as well as being able to raise funds for local needs. Aware of recent failures in the American colonies, there was a strong executive command lead by London appointed lieutenant governors. While British North America afforded accommodations in the colony in the 1800’s, they also set limits that reinforced their authority.

    • Tina Loo 7:39 pm on October 24, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      General comments on Week 7:
      Most of you did a good job coming up with examples of how the British accommodated different groups, but very few of you discussed why that was; i.e. very few of you answered the question about what factors shaped their willingness to be accommodating.

      Examples of accommodation include the British coming up with oaths of neutrality for the Acadians, designing the delegate system so Acadians could participate in politics; the Proclamation of 1763 and the Quebec Act of 1774 are examples of how Indigenous people and the French Catholic majority in Quebec were accommodated. The creation of New Brunswick and the Constitutional Act, 1791 are ways the Loyalists were accommodated.

      The question is why? What was social, political, and economic factors led the British to do these things?

      In some cases it was war and the need for allies, in other cases it was the need to figure out a way to include the majority of European settlers in running the colony, in still others it was to preclude frustration and dissent on the part of those settlers. This is what I wanted you to discuss.

      Also you needed to recognize that the willingness of the British to accommodate different people changed over time. The best example of this is what happened to Indigenous people. Once important allies who had to be cultivated, Indigenous allies were pushed aside when British interests changed.

  • admin 5:30 am on July 29, 2013 Permalink |  

    Week 8 Wall 

    In what ways were the Rebellions in the Canadas similar to those in the Atlantic region? To what extent and in what ways might the 1830s be seen as an age of revolution in British North America?

     

    • millyzhu 7:04 pm on October 23, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      The rebellions that occurred in both Lower and Upper Canada had similarities with the colonies in the Atlantic region. There was a small group of elitists in the society that held the ruling powers while oppressing the rest of the society. As the people came to realize what was going on through respective prominent figures in the colonies, they grew more aware of their unfair situations and demanded a reform of the governing system. The Canadas and the colonies in the Atlantic region demanded for a responsible government where no one was appointed, but had to be elected by the voters. Although the idea was first rejected by Britain’s government and Governors, after spreading awareness through the establishment of the reformists’ newspaper mills, the demand grew for responsible government and it ended in favour of the reformists.
      Despite their demand for democratic reform through limited to no violent acts, the 1830s could be seen as an age of revolution because of the varying methods and the then-radical thinking of their demands that the colonies of British North America insisted upon. The differing methods used by the dissatisfied colonies varied as some protested, took up arms, started newspaper mills, and/or pressed the British government and Governor for change. The then-radical thinking was the concept of responsible government where there was an assembly that was elected by the voters, but because of this “extremist” type of thinking back then, the 1830s could have been seen as an age of revolution. However, the extent to which the 1830s in British North America was seen as a revolution was quite restrained compared to the revolutions and wars that occurred outside the colonies, which were the very definition of revolution, such as the America Revolution, French Revolution, and the Napoleon War, where their respective “governments” were overthrown by the people.

    • enorthwood 7:31 pm on October 23, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      Both of these events are similar due to their cause that made the means to an end for this to happen. Both areas were being repressed by what is probably best called an “aristocracy” gone bad or oligarchy really. To bring in an outside example away from lecture, this situation reminds me a lot of Brazil. Profit is made in the country but it goes into the pockets of the few. Obviously, those who benefited from this didn’t want this to be discontinued so there was a lot of struggle in both areas to properly appoint people to make responsible government happen. However it seems both these places adapted some way to give the powerful voice of the people, there was an ability to overcome the voicelessness of the population and people could be properly instilled into positions where they could respond to the peoples need for political change. However, I feel like the economics from place to place differ. In the Atlantic region they seemed to be doing well economically and this created a new class of merchants that really gave voice to some of their political movements. None the less, I don’t feel like this was much of a position in Lower and Upper Canada. I feel like there was land owners and people who worked the land, at least I feel like the merchant class wasn’t really something that was available to them at the time. I also feel as if the Atlantic had a few more advantages in way of cod fisheries etc. that were mentioned through class and large scale fur trades, where as some areas of Upper and Lower Canada wouldn’t have this privileged.
      I think it could be seen as an age of revolution because of what people had to go through to get to their desired end. When I think of revolution I think of a straight line, with many different series of checkpoints along the way that lead to a desired end and each check point is a step in the right direction, but they can also be gone back too. I feel like the revolution’s end was responsible government and this demolition of the oligarchy. However it took a very long time and a lot of death, punishments, disputes of power to get there and rebellions. In this way can revolution be seen because it took this desire to reach their end that the people were finally able to change the way that their prospect governments ran and people finally received the political power they had been craving.

    • angieL 6:44 pm on October 24, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      They are similar in ways that there were different socioeconomic groups looking out for their own self-interests. Different groups were profiting from certain rules, especially small groups of social elitists and British loyalists that were holding power over the commoners; therefore, it was difficult to reform policies and appointed officials that could benefit the majority. Atlantic colonies had also inherited the same government systems as the Canadas. With the influence of a few prominent figures at the time, the people were starting to realize that they needed a government that better represented their needs and understood the delicacy of the situation in terms of different racial and religious groups. They wanted the right to vote, and the power to elect their own officials. In both instances, the people wanted to establish policies that reflected the social desires of the majority, not just a few in power, and refused to let the British government assumed full control over the rule and decision making. Rebellions in both the Canadas and the Atlantic regions were also concerning similar matters such as landholding and the right to office. The 1830s might be seen as an age of revolution in British North America to the extend that people were dying, punished, and forced to resort to violence to achieve political goals. There were also outbreaks of war, such as the one in Lower Canada, resulting from unresolved conflicts between classes and unsettled political situation. It is a revolution in ways there were death and punishment along the way, and many who fought for democracy were convicted and trailed. Although the original government bodies were not overthrown as in typical revolutions such as the American and French Revolution, policies and systems were reformed in ways that they could finally have better representation of the majority of they people .

    • nkular93 10:22 pm on October 24, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      The rebellions in the Canadas were similar to dissent in the Atlantic region in that the civilians living in both regions were beginning to demand for an elected assembly that represented the people of both regions and for a more responsive and responsible government. In Upper Canada, power was concentrated in the hands of the Family Compact. In order to keep the colony British and keep American influence to a low level, the Family Compact began to take steps to keep Americans out by telling judges to withhold oaths of allegiance to Americans, therefore rendering them without any political rights. This angered the citizens of the colony which provoked them to demand for a more responsible government instead of having a small group of people, the Family Compact, take decisions and hold majority of the power. In Lower Canada, many francophones began to suspect assimilation efforts by the British as well as resented how immigrants from the British Isles were beginning to populate the area, which caused them to speak out for their own political rights and demand for a responsible government. In the Atlantic regions, as the colonies began to grow, the middle class people of the colony were beginning to develop a sense of community and their own local interests and soon politics came down to the question of how to make appointed bodies more responsive to the elected part of government and the people of the colonies. Therefore, it came down to the objection of the concentration of power in the hands of a few in the Atlantic region and the Canadas. People were beginning to demand for a responsible government that was accountable to them. They wanted to make their voices heard.
      The 1830s may be seen as the age of revolution in that the people living in the Canadas and the Atlantic region were beginning to revolt against the rule of the colonists. They were dissatisfied with the way the colonies were being run and therefore they revolted against it, at least in the Canadas they did. The 1830s took on revolutionary qualities as prominent figures began to take steps against the government and began to make their voices and opinions heard. William Lyon Mackenzie can be taken as an example as he put an appeal to small farmers and asked them to come together and lobby for change in the form of a more responsible government. Joseph Howe could also be looked at as an example of a figure who questioned the role of the government by publishing an article about it and got arrested for libel. He was seen as a champion of free speech, free press, and responsible government. As these figures were publicly revolting against the government and calling for drastic change by voicing their opinions, the 1830s can be considered the age of revolution.

    • mosachoff 1:35 am on October 25, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      The rebellions of Upper and Lower Canada were similar to the reforms in the Atlantic region in that the impetus for change was the same. In Upper and Lower Canada, the established political system had elite members of society controlling the government and making decisions. In Upper Canada, progressive groups made up of newer immigrants and the poorer members of society challenged the elite. In Lower Canada, rebellion was similarly vested in opposition towards the controlling executive powers, but also contained anti-British sentiments that the French Canadian population felt oppressed by. Lord Durham recognized this as an “ethnic” problem as well as a political one. The common goal of both rebellions was for a “responsible government” that put more control over colonial affairs in the hands of those who lived in the colonies as opposed to leadership sent from London. In the Atlantic region, the rebellion was focused on installing a responsible government. A similar situation existed in Atlantic Canada as it did in the Upper and Lower provinces, where control rested in the hands of British-loyal elite. The successful shift to a responsible government saw the executive counsel or cabinet become responsible to the assembly. From the reform movements that took place in the first few decades of the 19th century, Canada experienced its most revolutionary period up until that time. While not all of the movements were successful, each carried influence in shaping the political landscape of the provinces and colony.

    • kenthen 10:05 am on October 25, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      Political dissent, elitists ruling the lands, the lack of economy, poor social structure and upheaval were both the mainstays of the rebellions in the Canada’s and the Atlantic region. While were on this we can say that all these factors gave the BNA an age of revolution as well, but more on that later. First we will look at the similarities that led to the uprising. Both of these situations can be called uprisings due to the fact that in both instances small packs of elitists, land holders, absentee proprietors or corrupt government held the power and used it to their very own benefit leaving the poorer without certain and specific rights, to work hard and to suffer while the fat cats got bigger. These uprisings led to responsible governments and better rights for the citizens and voices within their own homes and lands. The upper British, the lower french and the Highlanders from the Atlantic all had differing situations that led to an uprising and movement within their own societies but the one main thing they had in common was a revolution.
      What these three societies lacked and needed could only be attained by a new social order or an upheaval of the powers that were leading them at that certain point and time. This is what made the 1830’s an age of revolution where the majority saw a need for change and did just that with forcible removal either that included death tolls, voices, freedom of speech and press, political maneuvers and hard stances that the minorities could not deny which eventually led to the changes that people sought out. Thus there were all the ingredients for an age of revolution.

    • alexwickett 3:43 pm on October 25, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      The rebellions in the Atlantic region, and the rebellions in Upper and Lower Canada had significant similarities. In Upper Canada the elite group, the Family Compact, was in control and often used methods to stay in power that were not in accordance with what the people wanted. In Lower Canada, a similar oligarchy existed, the Chateau Clique. Both groups used their power to further benefit themselves and remain in control as long as possible. The situation was similar the Atlantic Region, as the people were controlled by non-elected entities. The people in the Canadas and in the Atlantic colonies both sought out a government that would be responsible to the people. They wanted the executive council and governor to be responsible, and they wanted an elected Legislative Assembly, where most of the power would be concentrated. Initially, the crown ignored the requests, and though some concessions were made, it mostly ended with the people being angrier than before and turning to means of violence. Though all areas did eventually end up getting a responsible government, there were differences in the ways the colonies acted to get this. In Lower Canada for example, once the people that reached their wits end, the first shots were fired in the November of 1837. In Upper Canada, William Lyon Mackenzie took a stance against the government in his radical newspaper, and though the governor, Francis Bond Head did appoint two some what radical reformers to the executive council, no real changes were made and the elections of 1836 were the most violent ever. In the Atlantic regions however, the economy was rather different. Fuelled by the fisheries and the timber trade, a lot of the Atlantic colonies were prospering, and developed a prominent merchant class. When London, witnessed that the people were unhappy with the political situation, more concessions were made because the British Crown had already seen what had happened in Upper and Lower Canada.
      The 1830’s can be seen as a revolution because people were unhappy with the way they were being governed, and acted to change it. Through the publication of radical newspapers, protests, and violence, eventually the people prevailed, and every colony eventually received a responsible government. The definition of a revolution according to the oxford dictionary is, “a overthrow of government or social order in favor of a new one”. A new type of governance was definitely established and oligarchies, and suppressive, non –elected governments were overthrown. Though 1830’s revolutions were not necessarily as prominent as those in France and in the United States, they are still valid and important revolutions. Though not all the colonies were united as one to overthrow the British Crown, the people in each of the colonies did share a common goal. In respect, Britain was more lenient to granting the wishes of the colonies than in other circumstances, but that does not make the 1830’s any less of a revolutionary time.

    • SteveMoody 4:00 pm on October 25, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      As most rebellions are of the lower classes revolting against the upper ruling classes, the Atlantic Rebellions share these characteristics. In each location and under-represented worker class was taken advantage of by the powers of the colonizing force. The degrees to which different locations were affected by the rebellious fever varied, as the Rebellions of Upper & Lower Canada were put down after only a few weeks, while the American Revolutionary War spanned several years and the Haitian uprising against the French was almost as horrific and bloody as France’s own Revolution. In each case the call (if not the exact words used) reflected that for responsible government. A ruling cadre of elected officials from the local population. (the exception to this may be Haiti, as freedom from abject oppression and slavery was the driving factor behind their revolt)
      The Rebellions in Upper & Lower Canada differ from these other instances though in while they did not succeed initially, militarily or otherwise, one of their most important goals, responsible government, was realized despite the failures. (True, it took more than a decade to materialize, but can argue how much longer this would’ve taken had there been no Rebellions.
      To characterize the 1830’s as a distinctly ‘rebellious’ period only lends credence to the notion that other rebellions and resistance to colonial over-reach in the past (the Acadians, for example) were not as important to the shaping of Canadian identity. In terms of the noticeable long term effects on what we view today as ‘Canada’ then yes the rebellions of the 1830’s were significant, but I do not believe they represent a particular trend of era, but rather the lasting effects those two rebellions had on our view of Canada.

    • cprimus 4:52 pm on October 25, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      Although no rebellions occurred in the Atlantic colonies, like the two provinces of Canada they were greatly dissatisfied with the government and were resentful that, also like Upper and Lower Canada, the power still rested in the hands of an elite few who were ruling as an oligarchy. All of the citizens were unhappy when they realized that the government wasn’t responsive to the interests of the people, particularly over the use of public funds and land. They lobbied for responsible government. Although an elected assembly was created, the elites running the government could, at their own will, dissolve the assembly and replace them with their “friends”. Because of this, the presence of individuals calling for political reform strengthened: William Lyon Mackenzie in Upper Canada; Louis-Joseph Papineau in Lower Canada; and Joseph Howe in Nova Scotia. The Atlantic colonies (except Newfoundland) would achieve responsible government around the turn of the 1850s.
      The people started finding a voice. They wanted change and saw that they had to come together and fight for what they wanted and believed they deserved. Nothing brings people together more than an attempt to overthrow (or at least significantly change) the government. They wanted a government that listened to them and consulted them on matters affecting their region as a whole – public funds, land, voting power, immigration. They wanted to be recognized as a cohesive citizenry. Although some places did not take up arms, it was the many versus the few in all parts of British North America as they became more aware of the corruption of the government.

    • Tina Loo 2:30 pm on November 4, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      General Comments on this week’s question:
      Most of you did quite well on this, which is great. You will be asked to synthesize and analyze in just this kind of way on the December exam.

      The Rebellions in the Canadas and the political dissent in the Atlantic colonies shared much in common. In both regions discontent centred on the system of landholding and the power of a colonial oligarchy. As well, reformers in both regions saw responsible government as the solution; i.e. a restructuring of government so the appointed part of government was either eliminated or made accountable to the elected part of government. In short, reformers of both moderate and radical persuasions wanted more democracy.

      The other similarity that dissent in the Canadas and the Atlantic colonies shared was the central role newspapers and journalists played in giving voice to dissent (Pierre Bedard, William Lyon Mackenzie, Joseph Howe were all newspapermen).

  • admin 5:20 am on July 29, 2013 Permalink |  

    Week 9 Wall 

    Reflecting on the course so far, and not just on this week’s lectures, to what extent and in what ways can “Canada” be considered a “Metis civilization” as John Ralston Saul terms it?

     

    • mosachoff 12:48 pm on October 30, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      John Ralston Saul purposes that the “unconscious” Canadian identity as polite, altruistic, do-gooders is inherently vested in the psyche our aboriginal ancestors. Saul considers Canada to be a “Métis civilization” because at first contact with European settlers, they helped to teach Europeans the resourcefulness needed to live off the land and establish settlements. While this is partly true, relations between Europeans and First Nation peoples were never as genial as Saul suggests. When Vikings visited Atlantic Canada, there are documented accounts of fighting between the two groups with little reason for provocation. While it can be argued that the Viking explorers share culpability for the violence, it still shows that the First Nation people were not entirely peaceful. Saul goes on to delineate that the European constructs of our society such as our democracy and judicial system are actually manifestations of “tolerance, inclusiveness and fairness [that] we have actually learned from Canada’s native peoples”. This argument is somewhat flawed. It is hard to believe that our ideas of tolerance and fairness are derived from aboriginals 500 years ago and that it wasn’t human nature that influenced the development of these same ideas around the world, not just in Europe and North America. Saul’s polemic argument does hold some merit though. He asks us to reconsider our history and the way we define ourselves. Canada, essentially since its inception as colony and then a nation has been based on immigration. People have been arriving here for centuries, and as people come, they bring with them their ideas. We shouldn’t consider ourselves a European civilization nor a Métis civilization, instead we are a Canadian civilization that is defined by the compilation of ideas from people originating around the world. If we extend Saul’s description of a Métis civilization to the development and intermarrying of new ideas, from around the world and not just our First Nation ancestors, then we can consider Canada to be a Métis civilization.

    • millyzhu 8:57 pm on October 30, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      A “Métis civilization” as argued by John Ralston Saul is what “Canada” is. The social norms and behaviours of Canada today came from indigenous peoples and their way of living 500 years ago. Saul argues that Canadian identity was actually contrived by indigenous peoples and that the identity of Canada, which comprises of the traits of tolerance, inclusiveness, and fairness, was taken from indigenous peoples instead of what many believe came from our great motherland. However, it is too much of a stretch to state that the Canadian identity was brought up single-handedly by indigenous peoples. Before Canada was confederated, each colony had different types of settlers, all of whom immigrated to the new lands. These immigrants brought their own cultural roots and ideas, while creating new ones as they merged into one nationality. Hence, the Canadian identity was not just created by indigenous peoples, but was built upon by all different cultural groups. Also, the traits of tolerance, inclusiveness, and fairness that Saul argues came from indigenous peoples is too bold of an assertion as these traits can be found in anyone’s personality. Nevertheless, Sault does make a valid and interesting point when he states that Canada is a Métis civilization in the sense that it was built on the triangle traditions that involved French and English settlers and indigenous peoples with the interchange of culture and ideas that eventually formed the Canadian identity.

      • Tina Loo 2:53 pm on November 4, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

        But he isn’t saying that Indigenous peoples were the only group that created Canadian society; it’s a mix!

    • enorthwood 3:30 pm on October 31, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      John Ralston Saul argues in his book that what Canada is inherently Aboriginal, the practices, ideas and ways we communicate is much less British as it is Aboriginal. He argues that we have positive traits that are distinct to “Canada” and are not from the colonies we come from, but were designed and sculpted right here in Canada. To some extent, I have a large amount of agreement with this. In class we’ve talked about the idea of gift giving that came from the aboriginals, and now today we give gifts for large holidays, for birthdays and to show appreciate to someone. This has also become a custom even in China, when my dad has done business in China he’d come with immense amounts of gifts in high quality tea and chocolates. Truly this gift giving practice has been eminent throughout Canada and has very much become a part of our culture. Another example I can think of is intermarriage between Aboriginals and British colonizers, (Saul talks about this in the book says the article) and how that has become very common and acceptable in today’s society. Firstly, the argument he’s trying to make is calling for us as Canadians to reconsider our backgrounds. He asks us to understand that we are a result of a cross cultural phenomenon that paved way for an opportunity to learn from the Aboriginal way of life. I think this argument is valid in our everyday lives, and even in the classrooms of my high school I was taught a very different, euro centric view. It’s important for us to rewrite our own history to tell the entire story, not just one side. I can see how there might be a few flaws in his argument though. Many of the customs did come from Britain, our basic law system and regulations were enforced by Britain. That being said, I think his argument is one that needs to be taken further into account.

    • kenthen 3:40 pm on October 31, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      In a idyllic sense of the term ‘Metis Nation,” one might argue that we are indeed a Metis Nation. To be an Aboriginal in the essence of the ancestor teachings means to be at one with the earth, to not place yourself above any other being and to appreciate and be grateful for what we have. Now do we do this as a country? I would like to think if we can look upon each other with non-judgmental eyes and to accept the honesty that we in fact are guilty of past misgivings as well that we can say that this is a country that in fact we are worthy of such a title. We can say that we are a country of diversity of mixed race and of shared values brought forth by our inherent desire to be at peace with our surroundings and our fellow brothers and sisters. No longer will we look at that person or “those ” people with such disdain or precursors that will hinder them or bring harm to them. Then at that point we can accept the term fully and say we are a Metis nation.

    • alexwickett 3:36 pm on November 1, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      John Ralston Saul argues that Canada’s, “skill at consensual politics and negation is the direct result of our aboriginal legacy”. He argues that what many people believe to have come from European practices in fact come from Aboriginal practices. Saul believes that our, “institutional and cultural inheritance,” did not come from British parliamentary democracy, Western individualism or Western Capitalism etc… but came from Aboriginal practices. As we have studied in this course, it is true that the Europeans, particularly the French, did adhere to the some Aboriginal customs such as gift giving; this however does not constitute the thesis that all Canadian practices stem from Aboriginal ones. It is true, that many European’s did marry and have children with Aboriginals, thus forming the Métis population. For those specific people, it may be more justifiable to say that Canada is a Métis civilization, but for the rest of the Canadian population whom do not have Métis background, Canada cannot be considered a Métis nation, anymore than Canada could be considered a Spanish nation. Saul states that the “Canadian trait” of tolerance, inclusiveness and fairness come from Indigenous peoples, but it is far too broad a statement to make, in my opinion. Though it is entirely possible, and probable that many Aboriginal people exuded these traits, it is just as probable that the British and French people did as well. Indigenous, French, English and many other cultures have affected the Canadian identity since it’s colonization, but it is not possible to say that Canada is exclusively a Métis civilization. To contrast, if one was to take the meaning of “Métis civilization” to mean we are a group of people that come from different and mixed backgrounds, who have come to live together, then Canada could be seen as a Métis Civilization. Like the Métis, Canadians do not have one uniform background, and many different cultures have come to influence every Canadian in a different way. Depending on the definition of what a Métis Civilization is, defines how much Canada can be considered one.

    • angieL 4:58 pm on November 1, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      In his article, Saul argued that Canada is a “Métis civilization” which has inherited many Aboriginal values from 500 years ago. He said that as a country, our ideology, legal systems, and our “tolerance, inclusiveness and fairness” were all deeply influenced by ancient Aboriginal cultural beliefs and values. Looking back on what we’ve learned so far in the lectures, we’ve discussed many instances of accommodations, respect, and diplomatic gestures between the Europeans and the indigenous peoples, but there were also conflicts, betrayal, and discriminations. It is often through struggles, compromises, and cultural clashes that comes intellectual enlightenments and the appreciation of diversity and respect. Saul has a very narrow view on both the European and Aboriginal values; he seemed to be critical and quite negative towards European influence on Canada’s ideology and contributed all the “good” values and traits to the Aboriginal culture. I don’t think it’s fair to say that Canada’s acceptance of multiculturalism and inclusiveness is merely an influence of our Aboriginal roots; this way of thinking undermines our ability to make changes and improvements as human beings capable of compassion, empathy, and pain. I believe it was more of an interaction, or even multiple interactions between different cultural, religious, and racial groups that made Canada the country it is today. That it is a process of synthesis, integration, and social learning of cultures that made us appreciate and respect our differences, and learned to be fair to others.

      • Tina Loo 2:55 pm on November 4, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

        But wouldn’t Saul agree that the interaction you talk about is at the root of a “Metis” civilization? He says Canada is the result of a mixing of different traditions, including Indigenous ones.

    • nkular93 10:29 pm on November 1, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      Canada could be considered a Métis nation to some extent in that the cultural norms and practices of French, the English, and the Aboriginals as well as the relationships between these groups of people have shaped much of Canadian identity. Thinking about the Aboriginals, one finds that many of the values and beliefs held by these groups of people such as the existence of people in harmony, tolerance, and equality in some sense, are the basic beliefs held by the government as well as are a part of our identity as Canadians living in a multicultural society. Canada also carries the essence of French and English beliefs along with Aboriginal values considering that colonists from both nations had an impact on the development of the country. Through the questioning of the role of the government, citizens of Canada were able to demand for responsible government with egalitarian principles and move forward with the idea of having a society where individuals that were interconnected within a web of relationships were able to exist a part from and with other groups in harmony. The ideas of harmony and tolerance have been rooted in aboriginal culture. This suggests how the fundamental principles that underlie conduct by the state and society have been borrowed or adopted by the nation, making Métis Nation a plausible term that can be applied to Canada. Canada can be called a Métis Nation if the adoption of cultural norms and values of the Aboriginals along with the values and beliefs of the colonizers (the French and the English) are taken into consideration. However, aboriginal principles cannot take all the credit for their contribution to Canadian society as many other groups of people that colonized the land have also contributed in their own way to make Canada a multicultural and tolerant society. it is the interactions between these different groups of people that have allowed Canada to evolve into the nation that it is today. Therefore, yes the term Metis Nation can be applied to Canada if we only look at the contributions of the main groups of people that existed in Canada before, the Aboriginals, the French and the English. However, if we were to consider the contributions of various groups of people and the interactions between these groups of people and how society evolved accordingly due to these interactions, then calling Canada a Metis Nation would be undermining the contributions of various multicultural groups that make up Canada.

    • Tina Loo 2:56 pm on November 4, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      General Comments on this week’s blog.
      I didn’t comment on your blogs individually even though it’s this group’s turn for me to do so. That’s because this week’s question was really one where I was more interested in seeing you engage with John Ralston Saul’s ideas, which you did. I especially liked how many of you took pains to limit, or qualify, his idea, and to propose that perhaps a “metis” civilization could mean one that is a hybrid; that perhaps the Americas can only be seen that way. I also appreciated how some of you suggested, ever so gently, that Saul might engage in a bit of romanticization when it comes to his characterization of Indigenous culture. So good job, everyone! It’s just this kind of careful assessment and critique that I like to see and which characterizes good history.

  • admin 5:10 am on July 29, 2013 Permalink |  

    Week 10 Wall 

    Can we consider team sports part of governmentality? Why?

    Photo Credit: University of Maryland Digital Collections, 2011

     

    • SteveMoody 2:59 pm on November 7, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      The short form answer is ‘Yes’, sports teams can be considered part of governmentality. I will speak directly to ‘National’ teams though (ie, Team Canada). Professional sports and leagues are much more about commerce and the business possibilities they represent, and much less about the power of government.
      When dealing with professional sporting leagues and teams the governments position is much more one of economic cooperation, rather than a regional defining nationalism. If an element of the nation, say a city, requires a new arena (*Edmonton* *cough*cough*) they government may be brought in to help finance, or facilitate a deal where a particular team can benefit from national or international relations. This again represents the governments place in the economy though.
      National Sports teams in Canada represent a much more signigicant hand of the government in our regular lives. National teams typically need to receive government funding and are often affected by governments decisions on national policy and international relations. If the Canadian government is in a spat with some other nation, our national hockey teams match against that country becomes a political touchstone, a measure of the power of Canadian Values against the Values of our opponents. Have our nations worked to develop courteous and professional athletes, by which the remainder of Canada may be judged in absentia? Or did our athletes behave like blowhards and create an image of Canada that most Canadian’s would not want perpetuated?
      Governmentality also plays into what sports teams are honoured and which are not. There is no question that the performance of our Hockey team would be a point of national pride for our government, while the fortunes of our soccer or Rugby teams would be more of a sign of shame or lacking priorities.
      A great example pertaining to this is the funding question that comes up each Olympics, about how much money the Federal government puts into funding our international athletes. We always lag behind compared to the US, Australia, Russia and China, all nations who consider physical competition to be a hallmark of their international standing. Governmentality plays strongly into sports teams as it allows the government to take an active role and position in the communal society/social lives of the citizens its rules. If the government is involved in your favourite sports, when those sports bring you pride, then the government gets the bonus knock on effect of that positivity.

    • millyzhu 8:38 pm on November 7, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      Yes, we can consider team sports part of governmentality because the two share similar qualities. Upon British North America’s state formation, one of its aims was to take more control of its citizens, and the society at large. One of the ways the state was able to have this control was to create and expand organizations and institutions of which desired morals will be taught and regulated. Some of the institutions that were expanded were schools and penitentiaries in Canada. Both of these institutions were used to communicate values, conformity, and discipline in hope of creating a certain type of population, which were regulated by authoritative figures whose orders were followed, and if orders were not followed, then punishment would await. Likewise, team sports have these elements as well. In team sports, certain values are taught (eg. sportsmanship and rules of the game). If these values were broken, then there would be punishment. For example, while competing in a team swim relay, if the first swimmer were to dive before the whistle was blown, then they would be either criticized or disqualified. Also, disciplinary measures may be taken to make sure such that an early start will not happen again, perhaps through extra training. In the same way that in schools (eg. private schools in Canada) and penitentiaries there are uniforms to conform individuals into one, the same applies in team sports with team wear (eg. jerseys, gears). Moreover, in team sports, there are coaches that act as the authoritative figures who make and regulate the rules, much like wardens and police officers in penitentiaries. Therefore, team sports can be considered part of governmentality in that control is asserted by some authoritative figure(s) upon its subject, or “follower”.

    • enorthwood 10:47 pm on November 7, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      I think certainly it can. Sports teams are a direct reflection of the governments unique but pressing ability to instill discipline in us. In light of this weeks lecture about the school systems and prison systems, I think these few ideas have overlapping concepts that fall under one huge expectation: you follow the rules. Sports teams are people that work together under the same set of rules and try to work within those boundaries, however, they’re also very intensive when it comes to discipline. It takes time, focus and effort to become good at a sport, and it’s certainly a form used by the government in order to keep focus on pretty much anything that isn’t a rebellion. I think these kind of activities promote competition to become better, and designate team captains etc. When you designate a team captain, doesn’t it look shockingly familiar to choosing someone to run a country? You as a member of the team look up to the captain, and you seek them to basically be captain of the country, as your captain would run your team. They make decisions about what plays you put forward, and whats best for the team to succeed as a whole. In comparison to our contemporary government, this makes reasonably a lot of sense. Going back to the idea of repression, sports teams are a way to teach discipline. No one tells us that we have to line up when we buy something in a store, but we do. No one tells us that we have to play by the rules in a game, but we do simply because we fear that we will not be apart of the “team” or what’s socially acceptable if we do not abide by those rules. In light of Bentham’s prison idea, we are self regulating. Sports teams are no exception to continue to keep us abiding by the rules, and continue to regulate ourselves in our every day lives.

    • kenthen 11:27 am on November 8, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      In most sports movies or if one has ever played a competitive level of sports one of the creed or mantra’s one will most likely hear is, “were going to break you down and build you up to make you the best you we can use!” If that phrase right there doesn’t encompass the context of govern mentality then I’m not sure what would. Lets look at the prison system in Canada or anywhere in the world, the main form is punishment under the guise of rehabilitation or treatment but we are punishing and making the offender pay for debts to society. Now if we take a look at sports, amateur sports we see the youth wanting to play for fun and for their enjoyment . However as adults we have been conditioned to attain and meet expectations under the guise of “doing the best we can” or “just do it” slogans. In essence we are breaking the youth down and building them up under our own desires and needs to fulfill our expectations. THEN if they don’t meet our high standards either because they are unable to or they get injured we as a whole push them aside to let them rehabilitate or seek out treatment. However the worst that any youth can do though, is show promise and get the adults excited that we possibly may have the next Sidney Crosby or Michael Jordan and then the kid just not care! This too our society is blasphemous and it goes against the grain of what we stand for not only as a country but as a society. Why have a capitalist society of we aren’t going to be competitive at an early age, why waste gifts and time on someone who has it in them to be the NEXT great one and to have them throw it all away, LETS punish them with a public slogging and perhaps we can change their temperance and make them adhere to our ways of govern-mentality. Which is to be the best we can be by all means necessary.
      Now in terms of the education system
      Nest is the education system, in the early years of education it was seen as a key to ruling, character builders and as keys to social and political stability. Now if we look at team sports especially again in the amateur ranks that is exactly what we try to do to the young kids. We rule over them with rules. positions, plays, diagrams, conditioning, and screaming to get them to play to our benefit. Now i say this tongue in cheek because I often wonder at hockey rinks across Canada if the kids are excited to win just for the sheer enjoyment of competition and camaraderie or do they strive to win to gain affection from us as adults and parents? Of course character building is a huge one because in our country the last thing we ever want is someone who doesn’t have character that resembles everyone else in our country. But is it building character when in reality we are being programmed to look, act and behave exactly as the next guy and the next and the next etc? Now for social and political stability of course sports and education create a social stability through the teachings of fair play, sharing etc. Govern-mentality stand to reason that we behave to the norms of society, as does most ruling bodies of any sports league. Of course we know that politics is a huge part of education and sports almost to the point of detriment when you consider strikes, lockouts and over zealous parents.
      Don’t get me wrong I love team sports and always will, as the country of Canada, the education system and even the prisons. But sometimes we get too wrapped up in what we want that we forget that sports, education, the government and even the prison system are here to serve us as a society. To give us outlets for our voices, pent up energy, teachings and desires to learn, we forget the mentality of those services is designed by us for us. It should not be the other way around as it so often is.

    • cprimus 1:22 pm on November 8, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      I really want to participate in this week’s blog but I honestly don’t understand the question at all so I have nothing to contribute. Hope everyone has a great weekend!

    • alexwickett 4:08 pm on November 8, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      Team sports can be considered to be a reflection on governmentality because not only do they present a great example of rule and regulation following, but they also function as their own mini society. As we discussed in lecture this week, the government implemented more regulated school systems and penitentiaries. These institutions promoted uniformity, and obedience that were key for the government to control the population and prevent uprising. Education was pivotal to Canadian society at the time as it prevented idleness and kept people used to following a schedule and participating in a daily routine. Sports teams effectively do similar things. Parents put their children on sports teams to keep them occupied to keep them out of trouble as well as for the purpose of exercise and fun. Sports also require a certain amount of dedication, discipline, and ability to follow rules that are all crucial aspects to having a properly functioning population. If you are unable to be governed, it is likely you will not be able to be coached to success on a team. Additionally, sports teams themselves can act like a smaller version of a government. Teams can elect a team captain who functions as the body who is responsible to the players. The players’ interests are conveyed through the team captain to the coach and the parents, who are still responsible to the players, but not chosen by them necessarily. Further, all the decisions made are fuelled by the already existing rules of the sport, or the sport’s constitution. With all this in mind, it is fair to say that sports teams do function as a part of governmentality.

    • nkular93 5:14 pm on November 8, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      I’m not really sure as to how to address this question but I will go with saying that yes, team sports can be considered as a part of governmentality in that they both have the ability to instill discipline and that they both need to follow a set of rules and guidelines to conduct themselves. Teams need to instill discipline among their members in order to function as a whole and progress towards something. Each member is responsible for their own part or role in the team and, therefore, discipline is required in order to complete those tasks. The same could be said for the government in that they are responsible for establishing an agenda and carrying out the legislation that they create. The government needs to be disciplined in order to carry out their responsibilities without wavering.
      The government creates laws and carry out activities pertaining to the social, economic, and political sphere and by following a specific set of guidelines and rules. A parallel can be drawn between the government and team sports in that many team sports also function in the same way. A large part of teams and sports conduct is the following of particular rules and guidelines to play the sport. If the rules and guidelines are not followed or broken, there are consequences and backlash, either by the players or the public who is watching the sport. The same could be said for governmental conduct. If governments did not consider the laws that they themselves created and involved themselves in misconduct of any kind, there will be backlash by the members of the government and the public. So in a way, both are accountable to their members. Players are accountable to their team and political actors are accountable to members of the government and the public.

    • Tina Loo 3:20 pm on November 22, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      GENERAL COMMENTS: Great job everyone. Most of you made very insightful links between team sports and governmentality. The public education system, police, and penitentiaries all were concerned to enforce certain values and morals and in the case of schools and prisons, to build character. Some of the most important values were deference to authority and industriousness (instead of idleness). These are what team sports do: they discipline their participants and create responsible people in the same way that education, policing, and the penitentiary did.

← Older posts

c
Compose new post
j
Next post/Next comment
k
Previous post/Previous comment
r
Reply
e
Edit
o
Show/Hide comments
t
Go to top
l
Go to login
h
Show/Hide help
shift + esc
Cancel

Spam prevention powered by Akismet